The Legislative History of Naturalization 
in the United States 



Gbe TUmvetsitE ot Cbicago 

FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 



THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF 

NATURALIZATION IN THE 

UNITED STATES 

From the Revolutionary War to 1861 



A DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF 

ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE 

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



(department of history) 



By 

FRANK GEORGE FRANKLIN, B.L. 



CHICAGO 

1906 






-s 



" 






i x < 









TO VIOLA PRICE FRANKLIN 

IN APPRECIATION OF HER HELP AND INSPIRATION 






Gift I 

N 30 '06 



PREFACE 

The subject of naturalization has assumed a 
larger importance in the history of the United 
States than in that of any other nation. In this 
study I have sought to exhibit the course of 
opinion thereon chiefly as it manifested itself in 
discussion, reports, and legislation at the central 
forum of American political life. 

The sources of information are sufficiently in- 
dicated. In large measure I have let men speak 
for themselves. Some latitude of expression has 
been allowed -in indirect quotation, in the effort 
to preserve the flavor of the original utterance. 

I am indebted to Professor Frederick J. Turn- 
er, of the University of Wisconsin, for much 
helpful suggestion and criticism upon the earlier 
part of the work. I desire to mention Professors 
Hermann Edouard von Hoist and Benjamin S. 
Terry, of the University of Chicago, because of 
inspiration that came from them. The work was 
begun with the encouraging approval of Dr. von 
Hoist, and in anticipation of his invaluable criti- 
cism of which his sickness and death deprived me. 
The exceptional facilities of the library of the 
Wisconsin State Historical Society have lightened 
my task. The abundant courtesy of its officials 
calls for appreciative acknowledgment. 

F. G. F. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. The Revolutionary Period i 

II. The Convention of 1787 19 

III. The Act of 1790 33 

IV. The Act of 1795 . . 49 

V. The Act of 1798 72 

VI. The Act of 1802 97 

VII. The Act of 1813 117 

VIII. An Act Concerning Evidence 129 

IX. Expatriation 134 

X. The Act of 1824 167 

XI. The Beginnings of Native Americanism . 184 

XII. The Period of Aggressive Native 

Americanism 215 

XIII. The Period of Aggressive Native 

Americanism (continued) 247 

XIV. The Know-Nothing Period 278 

Bibliography 301 

Index 307 



CHAPTER I 
THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD 

The Declaration of Independence declared 
the right of the people to establish a new gov- 
ernment. Yet earlier the Continental Con- 
gress had exercised authority to declare cer- 
tain Tories to be out of the protection of the 
United States, and had ordered that any per- 
son refusing its bills should be deemed an 
enemy of his country and be refused all inter- 
course with the inhabitants of the colonies. 1 

The early continental congresses required 
no oath from even their members. Soldiers at 
enlistment merely declared that they had 
voluntarily enlisted and did bind themselves 
to conform to the rules for the government of 
the army. Late in 1776 they were sworn "to 
be true to the United States of America and 
to serve them honestly and faithfully." 2 Con- 
gress early resolved "that no oath by way 
of test be ... . required of any of the 
inhabitants of these colonies, by any military 
officers." 3 A law of January 3, 1776, required 
certain officers of the government, chiefly 

1 Journals of Congress, II, 8, 21; January 11, 1776. 
'Ibid., I, 118; II, 367. 
•Ibid., II, 88. 

I 



2 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

those in charge of funds and supplies, to take 
an oath truly and faithfully to discharge their 
duties. 4 Congress later 5 established an oath 
for all officers in the continental service and 
for all holding civil office from Congress, as 
follows : 

I do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of 

America, namely, . . . . , to be free, independent and 
sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe 
no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King of 
Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse, and abjure any 
allegiance or obedience to him : and I do swear that I will 
to the utmost of my power support, maintain and defend 
the said United States against the said King George, etc. 9 

Even before the adoption of the Declara- 
tion of Independence the Continental Con- 
gress defined the citizenship of the colonies. 
It resolved, June 6, 1776, while considering a 
report of its Committee on Spies, "that all per- 
sons abiding within any of the United Col- 
onies and deriving protection from the laws 
of the same owe allegiance to the said laws, 
and are members of such colony." Persons 
only temporarily in a colony were declared to 
owe allegiance to it during their temporary 
stay, and it was made treason for such to levy 



4 Op. cit„ I, 187. 

6 October 21, 1776; February 3, 1778. 

8 Journals of Congress, II, 426. January 16, 1777, Congress 
ordered that the oath of fidelity be published {ibid., Ill, 20). 

7 Ibid., II, 229. 



REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD 3 

Hamilton accepted this position, and de- 
veloped its application to those who had been 
within the British lines during the war, and 
to Tories generally, in his Letters from Pho- 
cion, written in 1784. In opposition to pro- 
posed New York legislation hostile to 
Tories, he pleaded both their legal status and 
their treaty rights. The treaty, he held, for- 
bade attainting individuals for war crimes, and 
for the state to disfranchise or punish whole 
classes of its citizens by general descriptions 
and without a trial was tyranny. To say, on 
the other hand, that by espousing the cause of 
Great Britain the Tories became aliens, and 
that it would satisfy the treaty to> confine 
them to the privileges of aliens, was to admit 
that subjects might at pleasure renounce 
their allegiance to the state of which they 
were members and devote themselves to a 
foreign jurisdiction. That was a principle con- 
trary to law, and subversive of government; 
also it would lead to forfeiture of property by 
a fraudulent subterfuge that was more odious 
than an open violation of the treaty. The 
state could not deprive a citizen of his right 
without an offense ascertained by a trial, and 
the treaty forbade prosecution and trial. 

The idea of suffering the Tories to live among us under 
disqualifications is equally mischievous and absurd. It is 



4 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

necessitating a large body of citizens in the State to con- 
tinue enemies to the government. 

By the Declaration of Independence, acceded 
to by the New York convention, July 9, 1776, 

the late colony of New York became an independent state. 
All the inhabitants who were subjects under the former 
government, and who did not withdraw themselves upon 
the change which took place, were to be considered as 
citizens owing allegiance to the new government. This, at 
least, is the legal presumption ; and this was the principle 
in fact, upon which all the measures of our public councils 
have been grounded. 8 

Thus, according to Hamilton, residents of 
New York, formerly British citizens, had the 
opportunity of making choice of American or 
British citizenship immediately after July 9, 
1776. By choosing the latter they chose to 
become alien enemies in the place of their 
residence, and were under the necessity of 
withdrawing from the state. Persons who re- 
mained were, and continued to be, American 
citizens, although the fortunes of war later 
left them within the enemy's lines, where they 
owed a temporary and qualified obedience, 
and although they took voluntary part with 
the enemy and became traitors thereby. He 
held that the idea of citizens transforming 
themselves into aliens by taking part against 
their state was altogether unknown and in- 
admissible. 

8 Lodge, Works of Alexander Hamilton, III, 449-70. 



REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD 5 

Bancroft states the theory of citizenship 
resulting from the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence thus : He that had owed primary al- 
legiance to Great Britain now owed primary 
allegiance to the United States, but it was no 
treason to adhere to- the king's government, 
Yet those who chose to remain on the soil, by 
residence accepted the protection of the new 
government, and have owed it allegiance. He 
adds that this was why for twelve years in 
American state papers "free inhabitants" and 
"citizens" were convertible terms, either or both 
being used. 9 

During the Revolutionary War repeated 
efforts were made to detach the foreign ele- 
ment from the British army by offers of land 
and citizenship. First, in August, 1776, Con- 
gress adopted the report of a committee to 
devise plans for encouraging the Hessians 
and other foreigners to quit the British ser- 
vice. They declared it to have been 
the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of 
their laws to all those who should settle among them of 
whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit 
them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious 
freedom. 

They asserted that the "benevolence" and 
"salutary effects" of this practice advo- 
cated its continuance. They resolved that 

9 Bancroft, History of the United States, V, 200. 



NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

these states will receive all such foreigners who shall leave 
the armies [of England] .... and shall chuse to become 
members of any of these states ; and they shall be ... . 
invested with the rights, privileges and immunities of 
natives as established by the laws of these states. 

Each of them should be given fifty acres of 
land. A little later (August 27, 1776) they 
resolved to give lands, proportioned in 
amount to their rank, to foreign officers that 
should leave the British army "and chuse to 
become citizens of these states." Again, two 
years later (April 15, 1778), they said to such 
foreign officers and soldiers: "We are willing 
to receive you with open arms into the bosom 
of our country." 10 

Jefferson, as governor of Virginia, issued 
a proclamation, February 2, 1781, in which he 
recited the offer of Congress of fifty acres of 
land to foreigners who should leave the 
British army "and should chuse to become 
members of any of these states." He had 
thought fit, by and with the advice of his 
council, to make more generally known that 
engagement of Congress, and to promise fur- 
ther "to all such Foreigners who shall leave 
the armies of his Britannic Majesty while in 
this state, and repair forthwith to me at this 
place," that he should recommend the further 

10 Journals of Congress, II, 310, 330; Secret Journals of Con- 
gress, I, 70. 



REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD 7 

donation to each of two cows, and their ex- 
emption, during the existing war and their 
continuance in the state, from all taxes for the 
support of the war, and from military ser- 
vice. 11 

Opinions vary as to the result of these 
overtures. Of 29,867 Germans sent to* Amer- 
ica, 12,554 were not returned at the end of the 
war. It is estimated that five thousand of 
these had deserted, largely while prisoners of 
war. Some of them were enlisted in the 
American army against the wishes of Wash- 
ington. German writers claim that the Ger- 
mans deserted less freely than did the Eng- 
lish soldiers. 12 The Gloucester (Eng.) Journal 
of November 10, 1783, in a dispatch of Sep- 
tember 10, from Kingston, Jamaica, relates 
that four thousand British prisoners of war 
were received in New York from Philadelphia, 
among whom were about seven hundred Germans, all that 
could be found out of nine thousand of those people, who 
have been made prisoners by the Americans in the course 
of the war; the remainder have dispersed themselves in 
the different provinces, and have been naturalized by Con- 
gress, 13 in order to forward the manufactures, agriculture, 
and population of their extensive territories. 

After making allowance for escaping prisoners, 
and for deaths from wounds and disease, per- 

11 Ford, Writings of Jefferson, II, 445. 

12 Lowell, The Hessians in the Revolution, 285, 290, 291, 300. 
18 This, of course, is a mistake. 



8 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

haps this estimate of the number of deserters 
does not vary greatly from the former one. 
Other acts of Congress include a provision 

for passports to certain inhabitants of New 

Providence certifying their fidelity "and de- 
sign to remove .... to . 

states .... with intent to become sub- 
ject to the same;" 11 a recommendation to 
Maryland to assemble the inhabitants in cer- 
tain counties on an appointed day and take the 
oath of allegiance required by the state, dis- 
arming all that refused it ; 18 a recommenda- 
tion to New York to receive as citizens certain 
Canadian and other refugees (eighty men and 
women besides children) who had petitioned 
Congress from Kishkill, N. Y.; lt; a resolution to 
confirm their possessions to French settlers at 
Post St. Vincents (Vincennes, I ml.) who be- 
fore [783 "had professed themselves citizens 

of the United States or any of them." l7 

A remarkable proposition is contained in 
a letter from John Adams at Paris to the pres- 
ident of Congress, as follows: 

There is another point of very great importance, which 

I am persuaded will be aimed at by the English ministers; 
1 am sure it will be by the people of England, whenever 

l * Stcrtt Journals of Congrtss, 1. 87; August 17, 1778, 
^Journals of Congross, Hi, .;o; February t, 1777. 
" Ibid.. VIII, -_;c>; August 0. 1783, 
"JN. 5 \. \U1. 91. 



REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD 9 

terms of peace shall be talked. For facilitating the return 
of commerce they will wish to have it stipulated by the 
treaty, that the subjects of Great Britain shall have the 
rights of citizens in America, and the citizens of the United 
States the rights of subjects in the British dominions. 
Some of the consequences of such an agreement to them 
and to us are obvious and very important; but they are so 
numerous, and it is so difficult to determine whether the 
benefits or inconveniences prevail, that I should be sorry to 
have so great a question left to my determination. 18 

The same result was sought in 1794 by 
Lord Loughborough (the former Wedder- 
burn, now lord chancellor) in a proposal "that 
in either country, the subjects or citizens of 
the other shall be exempted from all the disabili- 
ties of alienage." John Quincy Adams wrote 
of this in his diary: 

The article proposed by Lord Loughborough, the chan- 
cellor, is certainly extremely liberal ; although Mr. Jay 
thinks it best to leave it as a subject for future considera- 
tion Such an Article would certainly tend to pro- 
mote the friendly intercourse between the Nations ; and I 
do not know that it could produce any material incon- 
venience to either. But it would be necessary to have an 
Act of Parliament to confirm the stipulation here, which, 
his Lordship says, may be obtained without difficulty. A 
more material obstacle arises from the constitution of the 
United States, with one clause of which such an article 
would certainly militate. 

The provision referred to is doubtless that 
giving to Congress the power of establishing 

18 John Adams, Works, VII, 136; March 24, 1780. 



io NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

a uniform rule of naturalization. That this 
is the case is shown by the comment of Adams 
upon the Louisiana Purchase. He regarded 
it as abolishing the Constitution by treaty, 
and one of his counts against it was : "It nat- 
uralizes foreign nations in a mass.'' 19 Adams 
saw in this proposition support for Loughbor- 
ough's professions of very friendly disposi- 
tion toward the United States, although he 
had been known as a conspicuous opponent 
of America during the Revolution. 20 

There is a reference to a part of the same 
question in an interview in 1817 between 
Adams as minister to England and Hamilton, 
a British under-secretary of state, in regard 
to a claim for inheritance of land. Hamilton 
had said that he found great difficulty in ad- 
mitting a whole nation, eight millions of for- 
eigners, to all the privileges of British sub- 
jects without having any claim upon their 
allegiance. Adams replied that the 
mere privilege of holding lands would never, in the present 
condition of the world, have consequences important to 
either government, and there was something very harsh in 
stripping individuals of their estates on the mere ground of 
alienage. 21 

This remarkable proposal has been revived 
in England in recent years. Professor Dicey, 

18 J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, V, 400. 

*° Ibid., I, 49; October 22, 1794. al Ibid., iii, 513. 



REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD ii 

of the chair of English law at Oxford Univer- 
sity, in a notable lecture at All Souls College, 
while the arbitration treaty between the 
United States and England was before the 
United States Senate, earnestly advocated a 
common citizenship for British and Amer- 
icans. He designed nothing in the least re- 
sembling political unity; but would merely 
have every American citizen, on landing at 
Liverpool, occupy the same position as to 
civil and political rights as the inhabitant of 
Victoria who might land from the same boat ; 
and an Englishman, on landing in America, 
should enjoy the same civil and political rights 
as an American born and reared abroad who 
might first land there at the same time. The 
plan was wholly feasible. The practical ef- 
fects would be comparatively small, but 
wholly good. The indirect and moral effects 
would be greatly beneficial. The alien al- 
ready possessed in both countries nearly all 
the civil rights of citizens. The political 
status of the American when in England 
would become precisely that of his grand- 
father, who was a citizen of New York, or 
Massachusetts, and a subject of the crown. 
He might vote, sit in Parliament or in the 
cabinet, and even aspire to the House of 
Lords. The dubious advantages of American 



12 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

restrictions on naturalization were not worth 
weighing against the serious advantages of a 
common citizenship. 22 

Franklin's sketch of Articles of Confedera- 
tion of May 10, 1775, contains no reference to 
citizenship. 23 This is because independence 
was not yet planned for. The draft of August 
12, 1776, shortly after the declaration, is in 
Dickinson's handwriting. Arts. VI and VIT 
provide that the inhabitants of each colony 
shall always enjoy the same rights, liberties, 
privileges, immunities, and advantages in the 
other colonies that they now have, except as 
those rights are [may be] limited by the fur- 
ther provision that the inhabitants of each 
colony shall enjoy [only] all rights of local 
and foreign trade in any other colony that the 
natives of such other colony enjoy. This re- 
served to each colony the privilege of enfor- 
cing upon the inhabitants of the other colonies 
such restrictions upon trade rights as it might 
propose for its own members. 24 With the 
matter thus before them, it is strange that 
the draft of the committee of the whole (Au- 
gust 20, 1776) contains no reference to the 
subject. 25 Ten weeks later Congress added 
the provision that 

22 New York Nation, LXIV, 198, Correspondence from Oxford. 
28 Secret Journals of Congress, I, 283. 
24 Ibid., I, 292. 25 Ibid., I, 304. 



REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD 13 

the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vaga- 
bonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled 
to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the 
respective states ; and the people of each state shall have 
free ingress and regress to and from any other state; 

and enjoy the same trade privileges as the in- 
habitants. The final text contained this 
amendment with the word "respective" 
changed to "several;" and reads as follows: 

Art. IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual 
friendship and intercourse among the people of the United 
States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these 
States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice 
excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities 
of free citizens in the several States, and the people of each 
State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any 
other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of 
trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions 
and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, 
provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as 
to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, 
to any other State of which the owner is an inhabitant; 
provided also, that no imposition, duties, or restriction 
shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United 
States, or either of them. 

Among a number of points in a representa- 
tion of the Legislature of New Jersey to Con- 
gress on the Articles of Confederation is the 
objection that there is no oath or test to the 
general government required of the members 
of the Congress. Such an oath they thought 
to be necessary. The Confederation Congress, 



14 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

however, defeated a motion to amend the arti- 
cles in accordance with this representation. 
Only three states were for it, six were against 
it, and one was divided. 26 

Madison said in The Federalist: 

The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long 
been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a 
foundation for intricate and delicate questions. 

After quoting from the fourth article of the 
Confederation, he continues : 

There is a confusion of language here, which is 
remarkable. Why the terms free inhabitants are used in 
one part of the article, free citizen in another, and people in 
another ; or what was meant by superadding to " all privi- 
leges and immunities of free citizens," " all the privileges of 
trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It 
seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that 
those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants 
of a state, although not citizens of such a state, are entitled, 
in every other state, to all the privileges of free citizens 
of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may 
be entitled to in their own state: so that it may be in the 
power of a particular State, or rather every state is laid 
under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizen- 
ship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such 
rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to 
become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an 
exposition of the term " inhabitants " to be admitted which 
would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the 
difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very im- 
proper power would still be retained by each State, of 

86 Elliott's Debates, I, 87. 



REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD 15 

naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, 
residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizen- 
ship; in another, qualifications of greater importance are 
required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for cer- 
tain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in 
the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one 
State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of 
another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it 
to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this 
subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several 
States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered 
themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts incon- 
sistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the 
privilege of residence. What would have been the conse- 
quence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had 
acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another 
State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to resi- 
dence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? 
Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other 
consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious 
a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitu- 
tion has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision 
against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of 
the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general 
government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization 
throughout the United States. 27 

Bancroft found in "intercitizenship and 
mutual equality of rights" of all members in 
the Confederation "a new character and an 
enduring unity," not found before in federa- 
tions. Congress had at first defined only the 
membership of each colony. The Articles of 

27 The Federalist, No. XLII. Compare with the view of Ban- 
croft, p. 5. 



1-6 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Confederation brought in the rule that mem- 
bership might be transferred from one state 
to another. 28 While there is here doubtless 
the original expression of this character by 
the lawmaking body common to the new 
union, and is perhaps a new quality in federa- 
tions, yet there must be taken into account 
the earlier common English citizenship of the 
great majority of the members of the Confed- 
eration, and the common rights that it in- 
volved. Those, whether continued or not 
throughout the preliminary states of their 
combination, must have done much to render 
intercitizenship in the federation inevitable. 
In other words, if here is a new character 
in federations, it is because this is a fed- 
eration born out of conditions to which the 
new character was fundamental. The inter- 
citizenship of naturalized citizens was, on the 
other hand, not a matter of course. There is 
little to show that their status in this respect 
had been worked out generally in either the 
colonial or the revolutionary period. Colo- 
nial naturalization was usually limited in its 
benefits, by explicit provision, to the colony 
naturalizing. This restriction was not made 
with reference to rights in other colonies. It 
merely marked the limit of power under the 

28 Bancroft, History of the Constitution of the United States, 
I, 118. 



REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD 17 

colony's charter, the act of 13 Geo. 2, or the 
veto power of governor and crown. England 
did not permit colonies to create English citi- 
zens, and often restrained them in the making 
of colonial citizens. A Virginian who was an 
Englishman, upon settling in Maryland, be- 
came a Marylander. There was no necessity 
for this result if he was a foreigner. 

There is a case of naturalization, in the 
colonial period, first by Virginia and later by 
Maryland; and it seems probable from the 
record that the results of the Virginia nat- 
uralization were lost by the subsequent pro- 
ceedings in Maryland. At any rate, the Vir- 
ginia lands of one Dr. George Hacke, who was 
naturalized in Virginia in 1653, anc ^ again in 
Maryland in 1663, are said to have escheated 
at his death, and were regranted to his heirs, 
because he was a foreigner. 29 But, with the 
common tie one of their own formation, the 
rather anomalous condition that some of the 
citizens of one state should, and others should 
not, require naturalization upon removing 
to another state would naturally be done away 
with. 

The transfer of citizenship from state to 
state provided for by the Articles of Confed- 
eration very soon led to complaints due to the 

29 Virginia Historical Magazine, V, 256. 



1 8 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

easy naturalization laws of some of the states. 
Edmund Randolph, writing to Madison, made 
suggestions with reference to the intrusion 
of obnoxious aliens through other states. 
Madison replied (August 2j, 1782) that his 
hints merited attention, and that the subject 
had been several times mentioned in Con- 
gress. He believed that no committee had 
ever reported a remedy for the abuse, but 
thought that a uniform rule of naturalization 
ought certainly to be recommended to the 
states. Their individual authority seemed, if 
properly executed, to be competent to the 
case of their own citizens. 30 Many years 
later in his introduction to the debates in the 
convention, he wrote : 

Among the defects which had been severely felt was 
want of an uniformity in cases requiring it, as laws of 
naturalization and bankruptcy. 81 

30 Madison Papers, I, 161. This seems to mean that states 
may be left to control state, as distinguished from federal, citi- 
zenship. 

81 Ibid., II, 712. 



CHAPTER II 

THE CONVENTION OF 1787 

In the proceedings of the Constitutional 
Convention of 1787 we look for any traces of 
a new citizenship. The first of these is in the 
resolutions offered by Randolph on May 29. 
His sixth resolution, 

that the national legislature ought to be empowered .... 
to legislate in all cases to which the separate states are 
incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States 
may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation, 

read in the light of the foregoing correspon- 
dence between Madison and Randolph, and 
the later proceedings of the convention, must 
be thought to comprehend consciously the 
subject in hand. His fourteenth resolution, 
that the legislative, executive and judiciary powers, within 
the several states, ought to be bound, by oath, to support 
the articles of union, 

is a step toward recognition of a new citizen- 
ship that met with considerable opposition. 1 
That they contain nothing more strengthens 
the probability that resolution 6 was seen to 
be sufficiently inclusive to provide for federal 
naturalization. 2 These provisions were un- 

1 Elliott's Debates, I, 408; Madison Papers, V, 182! 
3 Elliott's Debates, I, 143. 

19 



20 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

changed in the resolutions as amended and 
agreed to in committee of the whole house 
on June 19. 

Meanwhile (June 15) Patterson's proposi- 
tions were introduced and referred to a com- 
mittee of the whole house, and they were de- 
bated the following day. The sixth of these 
was identical with Randolph's fourteenth res- 
olution. The tenth was : 

Resolved, That the rule for naturalization ought to be 
the same in every state. 8 

Pinckney's plan, long discredited, but re- 
cently in large measure rehabilitated, contains 
nearly everything bearing on citizenship and 
naturalization that found place in the final draft. 
A later compromise plan communicated by Ran- 
dolph to Madison July 10, but not introduced be- 
cause the smaller states had succeeded in getting 
an equal vote in all cases in the Senate, proposed 
that each state should have one vote in that 
branch in thirteen specified cases, one of which 
was: 

In regulating the rights to be enjoyed by citizens of 
one state in the other states.* 

Randolph's sixth and fourteenth resolu- 
tions were respectively the sixth and the 
twentieth of the twenty-three resolutions ap- 

3 0/. «V.,I, 177. 

* Madison Papers, II, iuo; III, Appendix, p. vii. 



CONVENTION OF 1787 21 

proved by the convention and referred to the 
Committee of Detail. Patterson's and Pinck- 
ney's resolutions were also laid before this 
committee. 

The growth of the ideas that were em- 
bodied in the Constitution is to be studied 
further in the draft reported by this commit- 
tee, in the revised draft made by the conven- 
tion, in the final form as reported by the Com- 
mittee on Style, and in the available reports 
of the proceedings and debates of the conven- 
tion. I shall trace to its outcome each pro- 
vision of the committee's draft that seems to 
require notice. The first of these leaves the 
qualifications for the federal suffrage to be de- 
termined by the several states, requiring only 
that they be the same as shall be established 
for electors to the lower branch of each state 
legislature. An effort to strike out the phrase 
by which "electors" was limited received the 
vote of Delaware only, probably because the 
change would tend to restrict a state to only 
one class of electors. The section passed 
unanimously as reported, and was not 
changed later. 

Art. IV, sec. 2, read: 

Every member of the House of Representatives .... 
shall have been a citizen in the United States for at least 
three years before his election. 



22 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

"Citizen in" was changed to "citizen of." Vari- 
ous motions were made as to the number 
of years of citizenship to be required to qual- 
ify a representative. "Seven years" was in- 
serted in place of "three years," with only 
Connecticut opposing. "Three years" was 
lost by a vote of 2 to 9. A motion for one 
year was lost, and the clause passed unani- 
mously. 5 Some days later (August 13), ex- 
tended discussion upon the term of citizen- 
ship to be required for senator having inter- 
vened, reconsideration was had. Wilson and 
Randolph moved to strike out "seven years" 
and insert "four years" as the requisite term 
of citizenship to qualify for the House of Rep- 
resentatives. Wilson thought it very proper 
for the electors to require seven years, but 
unnecessary and improper that the Constitu- 
tion should chain them down to it. Gerry 
wished that in future eligibility might be con- 
fined to natives. Foreign powers would in- 
termeddle and spend vast sums in secret ser- 
vice and in influencing the government. Wil- 
liamson moved to require nine years of citi- 
zenship. 

Hamilton was in general against embar- 
rassing the government by minute restric- 
tions. He proposed an amendment requiring 

6 Elliott's Debates, I, 224, 232. 



CONVENTION OF 1787 23 

only citizenship and inhabitancy. This would 
leave discretion to Congress, and answer 
every purpose. Madison, seconding the 
amendment, said that he wished to maintain 
a professed character of liberality, and to in- 
vite foreigners of merit and republican prin- 
ciples. America was indebted to immigra- 
tion, and had advanced most rapidly where it 
was most encouraged. There was a possible 
danger in office, but it was by no means prob- 
able in any dangerous degree. The people 
would prefer natives. Wilson cited the rapid 
growth of Pennsylvania to a place among the 
foremost in population and prosperity as 
proof of the advantage of encouraging immi- 
gration. Almost all of her general officers in 
the Revolution were foreigners, and no com- 
plaint arose. Three of her deputies in this 
convention were not natives. He had no ob- 
jection to Hamilton's motion, and withdrew 
his own. Butler was strenuous against for- 
eigners in our councils. The vote on Hamil- 
ton's amendment was: ayes, 4 (Conn., Penn., 
Md., Va.); noes, 7 (N. H., Mass., N. J., Del., 
N. C, S. C, Ga.). On nine years the vote 
stood: ayes, 3 (N. H., S. C, Ga.), and noes, 
8. Wilson renewed his motion for four years. 
It secured the votes of Conn., Md., and Va. 
An amendment bv Gouverneur Morris 



24 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

opened up a new field for debate. He pro- 
posed the following: 

Provided always, that the above limitation of seven 
years shall not be construed to affect the rights of those 
who are now citizens of the United States. 

Mercer, in seconding this, said that it was 
necessary to prevent putting any who had be- 
come citizens below the level of natives. Rut- 
ledge thought that it might as well be said 
that all qualifications are disfranchisements, 
including the age qualification of twenty-five 
years. The policy of the precaution was as 
great for those now citizens as for those to be- 
come so. 

Sherman held that the United States had 
not pledged equal privileges by invitations. 
Only individual states had done this. The 
United States were free to discriminate as 
they should judge it to be requisite. Gorham 
doubted the propriety of a retrospective re- 
striction. When foreigners were naturalized, 
it would seem as if they stood on an equal 
footing with natives. 

Madison found in the peculiar doctrine of 
Sherman a subtlety by which every national 
engagement might be evaded. Who but the 
states were to form the new Constitution? 
If it violated pledged faith, the states would 
be violators. Every state would be exposed 



CONVENTION OF 1787 25 

to reproach, and reduced to the dilemma of 
rejecting the Constitution, or of violating the 
faith pledged to a part of its citizens. Gouv- 
erneur Morris denied that any pledge had been 
made to persons under twenty-five years, but 
faith had been pledged that foreigners should 
enjoy the privileges of citizens. Pinckney as- 
serted that the laws of the states varied much 
as to naturalization, and that the United 
States could not be bound to respect them on 
such an occasion as this, when there was a 
sort of recurrence to first principles. Mason, 
too, was struck by the propriety, not the pe- 
culiarity, of Sherman's doctrine. There was 
need of greater caution at the beginning of 
the government, or there might be pernicious 
consequences in the commercial regulations. 
Wilson found in the provision of the Penn- 
sylvania constitution, giving "all the rights 
whatsoever of citizens" to foreigners after 
two years' residence, together with the pro- 
vision of the Articles of Confederation that 
citizens of one state should be citizens of all, 
an obligation resting upon Pennsylvania to 
maintain the faith thus pledged to her for- 
eign-born citizens, and held that her failure 
would authorize just complaint. Foreign 
powers would use such breach of faith to deter 
their subjects from emigrating to the United 



26 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

States. Mercer had the same idea. Baldwin 
still thought that discrimination as to birth 
was no more objectionable than that of age, 
in the propriety of which all had concurred. 
The vote resulted: ayes, 5 (Conn., N. J., 
Penn., Md., and Va.) ; noes, 6 (N. H., Mass., 
Del., N. C, S. C, Ga.). A motion to insert 
five years for seven was lost by a vote of 3 
to 7. The principle involved was that of 
greater privileges to foreigners, and the vote 
was as the preceding one, except that New 
Jersey now went with the majority and Penn- 
sylvania divided. The section was then 
agreed to unanimously as amended, and had 
attained its final form. 6 

I return now to consider the term of citi- 
zenship to be required of a senator. This 
was four years in the report of the Committee 
of Detail. Gouverneur Morris moved to 
change to fourteen years, and urged the dan- 
ger of admitting strangers to the public coun- 
cils. Pinckney seconded the amendment and 
urged the treaty power of the Senate against 
a short term qualification. There was pe- 
culiar danger and impropriety in opening the 
Senate's door to those who had foreign at- 
tachments. Mason highly approved the pol- 
icy of the motion. Except for the revolution- 

6 Elliott's Debates, I, 240; Madison Papers, III, 1299-1302. 



CONVENTION OF 1787 27 

ary deeds of many, he would favor limiting 
eligibility to the Senate to natives. 

Ellsworth opposed thus discouraging meri- 
torious aliens from emigrating to this country. 
Madison could never agree to the proposed 
amendment. He was not averse to some re- 
strictions on this subject, but any restriction 
in the Constitution was unnecessary and im- 
proper. It was unnecessary because Con- 
gress was to regulate naturalization and 
could require different periods of residence 
for the different privileges of citizenship. It 
was improper because it would give a tincture 
of illiberality to the Constitution; because it 
would prevent Congress, even by special acts, 
from conferring the full rank of citizens on 
meritorious strangers; and would discourage 
the most desirable class of people from emi- 
grating to the United States. With a stable 
and reputable government established, great 
numbers of respectable, liberty-loving Euro- 
peans would be ready to transfer their for- 
tunes hither. Such persons, though not 
coveting public honors, would be mortified 
by incapacity. He did not apprehend that 
the state legislatures, even if left at liberty to 
do so, would choose any dangerous number 
of strangers; nor that foreign powers would 
use strangers as instruments of their pur- 



28 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

poses. Their bribes would be expended on 
men whose circumstances would rather stifle 
than excite jealousy and watchfulness. 

Butler was decidedly opposed to admitting 
foreigners till after long residence. They 
brought foreign attachments and different 
ideas of government, and were in every 
point of view dangerous. He himself would 
have been improper in public life till long 
after coming here. Franklin was not opposed 
to a reasonable residence requirement, but 
would be very sorry to see anything like il- 
liberality inserted in the Constitution. The 
people of Europe and many in England were 
our friends. Many strangers served us faith- 
fully in war, while many natives fought 
against us. Foreigners in choosing this coun- 
try and coming here gave a proof of attach- 
ment which ought to excite confidence and 
affection. 

Randolph thought that it might be prob- 
lematical whether emigrants were, on the 
whole, useful or not, but he could never agree 
to disable them from public honors for four- 
teen years. Many were here on the faith of 
invitations, and would be made hostile. He 
would go as far as seven years, but no farther. 
Wilson mentioned that some of the ideas ad- 
vanced might exclude himself, although he 



CONVENTION OF 1787 29 

shared in making the Constitution. Legal 
incapacity produced chagrin and mortifica- 
tion, even when one did not desire office. 

Gouverneur Morris closed the debate by 
urging that they should govern themselves 
by reason and not by feelings, and not be po- 
lite at the expense of prudence. Foreigners 
would enjoy great privileges without office. 
He would not trust philosophical citizens of 
the world. The men who could shake off at- 
tachments to their own country could never 
love another. They had no means of know- 
ing what legislatures would do. The vote on 
his motion to insert "fourteen years" for "four 
years" was: ayes, 4 (N. H., N. J., S. C, Ga.); 
noes, 7 (Mass., Conn., Penn., Del., Md., Va., N. 
C). Votes on thirteen and ten years each re- 
sulted the same. 

Franklin reminded the convention again 
that omitting a restriction from the Constitu- 
tion did not remove restrictions. Rutledge 
said that surely a longer term of citizenship 
was required for a seat in the Senate, with its 
greater power, than for a seat in the House of 
Representatives, where seven years had been 
required. Williamson thought it more neces- 
sary to guard the Senate, as bribery and 
cabal would be easier in the electing legisla- 
tures. Randolph would agree to nine years, 



30 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

expecting a reduction to seven years, if a mo- 
tion to reconsider the term for the House of 
Representatives should reduce it. Delaware 
and Virginia changed to the restrictive side, 
North Carolina divided, and the proposition 
for nine years carried 6 to 4. The section as 
amended was agreed to nem. con., and passed 
through the later stages without change. 7 

Art. VII, sec. 1 of the report of the 
Committee of Detail contained the following: 

The legislature of the United States shall have the 
power .... 3. To establish a uniform rule of naturaliza- 
tion throughout the United States. 

Clauses 1-8 of this section passed in the af- 
firmative. Madison reports that there was 
only one vote cast against clause 1, that clause 

2 passed nem. con., and that clauses 4, 5, and 
6 were agreed to nem. con. Apparently clause 

3 (as above) passed without important com- 
ment, and with slight, if any, opposition. 8 
The Committee on Style changed "a uniform 
rule" to "an uniform rule," a change not ap- 
proved today. 9 

The report under consideration contained 
no age or birth qualification for President. 
On September 4 a special Compromise Com- 
mittee of one member from each state, to 

''Elliott's Debates, I, 235; Madison Papers, III, 1273-76. 

8 Elliott's Debates, I, 245; Madison Papers, V, 434. 

9 Elliott's Debates, I, 298; Madison Papers, III, 1549. 



CONVENTION OF 1787 31 

which had been referred parts postponed or 
passed by, reported : 

Sec. 2. No person except a natural-born citizen, or a 
citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of 
the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President. 

This was agreed to nem. con., and embodied 
in the final draft. 10 

The Committee of Detail, in defining the 
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, extended 

it 

to controversies .... between a state and citizens of 
another state; between citizens of different states; and 
between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, 
citizens, or subjects. 11 

Later it was made the judicial power that was 
to extend to these controversies. For the 
present purpose there is need only to notice 
the mention of state citizenship. 

The Articles of Confederation had pro- 
vided that 

the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vaga- 
bonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled 
to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the 
several States, and the people of each State shall have free 
ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall 
enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, sub- 
ject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the 
inhabitants thereof respectively. 

The corresponding provision in the Constitu- 
tion appears first in the draft of the Commit- 

10 Elliott's Debates, I, 283, 291; V, 522. X1 Ibid., I, 229. 



32 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

tee of Detail, as follows: "The citizens of 
each State shall be entitled to all privileges 
and immunities of citizens in the several 
States." This was agreed to as reported, 9 to 
1, South Carolina opposing and Georgia di- 
vided. There is no record of discussion upon 
it, and it remained unchanged in the final 
draft. 12 

About the close of the convention Hamil- 
ton gave to Madison a paper outlining the 
Constitution as he would have wished it to 
have been proposed. Representatives, except 
in the first instance, were to be chosen "by the 
free male citizens and inhabitants of the sev- 
eral States." "The citizens and inhabitants 
of the several States" having land were to 
choose electors, who should choose the sena- 
tors. No person was to be eligible to the of- 
fice of president unless already a citizen of one 
of the states or thereafter born a citizen of the 
United States. A senator or representative at 
the time of his election should be a citizen 
and an inhabitant of the state in which he 
was chosen. Finally, "the citizens of each 
State shall be entitled to the rights, privileges, 
and immunities of citizens in every other 
State." 13 

UOp.cit., I, 229, 272; IV, 2. 

13 Madison Papers, III, Appendix, xvi. 



CHAPTER III 

THE ACT OF 1790 

The Act of 1790 was the first response of 
Congress to the grant of power to pass a uni- 
form rule of naturalization. More immediate- 
ly it was a response to the following clause 
from Washington's annual message (January 
8, 1790) : 

Various considerations also render it expedient that 
the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the 
rights of citizens should be speedily ascertained by a uni- 
form rule of naturalization. 

The bill was reported by a special committee 
of three appointed on the recommendation 
of the House Committee of the Whole on the 
State of the Union, to prepare and bring in a 
bill or bills for establishing a uniform rule 
of naturalization. 

While it was in preparation the House dis- 
cussed at some length questions raised by a 
petition of one H. W. Dobbyn, of Ireland, 
praying Congress to grant him lands on terms 
to encourage him to bring settlers to this 
country. A committee had reported upon this 
petition in favor of empowering the secretary 
of the treasury to sell not less than fifty 

33 



34 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

thousand acres in one tract. On the one hand, 
it was objected that Dobbyn was an alien and 
might not be able to conform to the new plan 
for naturalization soon to be reported; that 
both naturalization and land sales ought to 
be by general laws ; and that, in view of the 
notoriously rapid growth of population from 
the present inhabitants, sufficient in itself to 
people the territory, it was a mistake to throw 
away lands on foreign speculators, who were 
less likely to harmonize with, than, if numer- 
ous, to embarrass, a republican government. 
It was replied that it was important to attend 
to the proposals of foreigners — especially of 
intending citizens — for the purchase of lands ; 
and that the condition of complying with the 
laws might be inserted in the contract. The 
report was laid on the table. 1 

When the naturalization bill was reported, 
the House debated it at considerable length, 
recommitted it to a committee of ten, which 
reported an amendatory bill, and discussed 
the latter for several days. Various amend- 
ments were agreed to, and the bill passed. 
In the Senate there was preliminary consid- 
eration in committee of the whole, a fav- 
orable report from a special committee, and 
further consideration in committee of the 

1 Annals of Congress, First Congress, Second Session, 1097, 
1 104, 1 108, 1 no; January 20, 1790. 



ACT OF 1790 35 

whole on five successive days. The bill then 
passed with an amendment, in which the 
House concurred at once. 2 

The debate in the lower house, before the 
bill was recommitted, is reported quite fully. 
Of the later debates in either house there is no 
record; 3 nor can the course of amendments be 
traced. The original bill provided that all 
free white persons who had already migrated 
into the United States, who should prove by 
oath that they intended to reside in the United 
States, take an oath of allegiance, and "shall 
have resided in the United States for one 
whole year,"should be entitled to all the rights 
of citizenship, except that of holding office 
under either a state or the general govern- 
ment. For office-holding a residence of two 
years longer was required. 4 

Nineteen members are known to have par- 
ticipated in the first debate, upon a motion 
of Tucker (S. C.) to strike out the require- 
ment of one year's residence for landholding. 
Six of them spoke three times, and seven 
others twice. The radical nature of the propo- 
sition to require no previous residence for ad- 

2 House Journal, First Congress, Second Session, 146, 147, 
159, etc.; Senate Journal, 1, 34-48; Annals of Congress, First Con- 
gress, Second Session, 988, 989, 992, etc.; 1094, 1095, 1147, 1460, 
1463, 1516. 

3 Except for Maclay's account of what occurred in the Senate. 

4 Annals of Congress, First Congress, Second Session, 1147. 



36 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

mission to citizenship, except for office-hold- 
ing, doubtless gave a special color to> the vari- 
ous expressions of opinion, and makes some 
of them seem more conservative than they 
otherwise would have been. 

The main lines of argument may be ex- 
hibited under a few general heads, such as 
constitutional and legal questions, protection 
from dangers, and the promotion of immigra- 
tion. The constitutional questions were two. 
One man (Jackson, Ga.) would found our law 
on principles of progressive and probational 
naturalization, and cited English law in sup- 
port of his position. Another (Smith, S. C.) 
also insisted that a uniform rule might be 
progressive. Madison thought it a nice ques- 
tion how far they should admit to citizenship 
step by step, and Boudinot (N. J.) asserted 
that citizenship ought to carry with it full and 
complete, not partial, rights. 

The serious obstacle in the way of progres- 
sive naturalization was the view of the sphere 
of national control that seemed to be involved 
in it. According to Lawrence (N. Y.), while 
Congress would establish the rule of natural- 
ization, the effects of it were to be determined 
by the states. Congress had only to point out 
the mode for becoming citizens. The Consti- 
tution had fixed a term of residence for a seat 



ACT OF 1790 37 

in Congress. It was doubly doubtful as to 
the power of Congress to fix any such term 
as a qualification for membership in the state 
legislatures. Nor could Congress lengthen 
the six-months' period required by Xew York 
law for voting for members of the state legis- 
lature, to one year after citizenship had been 
gained. 

Huntington (Conn.) wished to leave the 
naturalization of foreigners to the state legis- 
latures. Stone (Md.) remembered that the 
states withheld privileges even from natives. 
White (Va.) ventured to doubt the power 
of Congress to decide when aliens could hold 
lands within the states. Seney (Va.) declared 
that Congress could fix a long term of resi- 
dence as preliminary to office-holding under 
the United States, but could neither lengthen 
nor shorten the term required by the states. 
Again, he asserted that Congress had nothing 
to do with prescribing the qualifications for 
state offices. Smith (S. C.) stood alone in as- 
serting that a uniform rule of naturalization 
would make a uniform rule of citizenship for 
the whole continent, and decide the rights of 
foreigners generally. Tucker (S. C.) cited 
the constitutional provision as to voters as 
proof that the states and not Congress were 
to define the privileges under naturalization. 



38 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Throughout the debate the principal rights 
involved in citizenship were regarded as land- 
holding and office-holding. Only occasion- 
ally did suffrage as an independent right re- 
ceive notice. 

Apart from the constitutional questions 
considered above, every point had to be con- 
sidered with reference to its effect on immigra- 
tion. The problem was to adjust the natural- 
ization law so as to gain the maximum advan- 
tage from immigration with the least harm 
or danger to republican government and in- 
stitutions, and to the other interests of the 
country. Page (Va.) held that European 
policy did not apply here, and that a more 
liberal system was permissible. It was incon- 
sistent with the claim of an asylum to make 
hard terms. These would exclude the good 
and not the bad. He would welcome all kinds 
of emigrants; all would be good citizens. 
Lawrence (N. Y.) declared that they were 
seeking to encourage emigration, but that the 
term of residence in the bill would tend to 
restrain it. The newcomer ought to vote as 
soon as he was taxed. He was not likely to 
leave the country after taking oath that he 
intended to reside in the United States. All 
comers, rich and poor, would add to the 
wealth or strength of the country. The evil 



ACT OF 1790 39 

to result from restraining immigration was 
greater than the benefits from a term of resi- 
dence. Conduct could be restrained by laws. 
Smith (S. C.) urged that the intention of the 
motion they were considering was to permit 
land purchase and holding. Clymer (Pa.) 
would admit to citizenship gradually, and 
suggested that it might be well to admit per- 
sons to hold land without ever coming to the 
United States, as Pennsylvania had done. It 
would result in easy borrowing. 

On the other hand, the dangers to be appre- 
hended from foreign-born citizens who might 
be lacking in character, in knowledge of, and 
attachment to, free institutions, or in a stead- 
fast purpose to reside in the United States, or 
who might be paupers or even criminals, were 
strongly urged by a majority of the speakers. 
Roger Sherman (Conn.) presumed that the in- 
tention of the constitutional provision was to 
prevent states from forcing undesirable per- 
sons upon other states. It was to guard 
against an improper mode of naturalization, 
rather than to provide easier terms. Congress 
would not compel a state to receive emigrants 
likely to become chargeable. It would be 
necessary to add a clause to provide for such. 
Hartley (Pa.) opposed admission to all of the 
privileges of a citizen without a residence re- 



4© NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

quirement. To have such a requirement was 
the practice of almost every state. All 
modern experience had shown the propriety 
of a line between the citizen and the alien. It 
would not be so bad if only landholding were 
involved, but voting was involved. Even if 
the foreigner was qualified to vote, there could 
be no hold on his attachment to the govern- 
ment, and hence no assurance of a good citi- 
zen, without requiring a term of residence in 
which he might come to esteem the govern- 
ment. Madison believed it necessary to 
guard against abuses. They should induce 
the worthy of mankind to come, the object 
being to increase the wealth and strength of 
the country. Those who would weaken it 
were not wanted. If only an oath was re- 
quired, aliens might evade the laws intended 
to encourage the trade of citizens, and thus 
have in trade all the advantages both of citi- 
zens and of aliens. It was a simple question 
that was before them — whether residence was 
a proper quality. He had no doubt that it 
was. 

Jackson (Ga.) wanted the term "citizen" 
to be venerated. He favored a term of pro- 
bation, and testimonials at the end of it, 
and would have the grand jury or the dis- 
trict courts decide as to the character. Sylvester 



ACT OF 1790 4i 

(N. Y.) also favored a term of probation and 
vouchers for good behavior. He suggested 
lodging the whole power of admitting for- 
eigners in district judges. Page objected that 
Jackson's plan involved inquisition and expel- 
ling the unworthy. It led to a test of the faith 
and politics of all who came for admission. 
Every man taking the oath of allegiance and 
purposing residence ought to be admitted to 
buy land. He did not object to a residence 
qualification for voting. Stone (Md.) would 
give property rights after six months' resi- 
dence, requiring an oath of allegiance and of 
intended residence. For voting and office-hold- 
ing he would require seven years' residence, 
following the example of the Constitution in 
this respect. 5 An emigrant desired property 
and not political rights. Before he was grant- 
ed the latter, he must have time in which to 
come to know the government, to admit the 
truth of its principles, and to have acquired 
a taste for this kind of government. Burke 
(S. C.) said that one year was too short a 
residence requirement, and seven years were 
too long. The time ought to be two, three, or 
four years. Sedgwick (Mass.) opposed ad- 
mitting the outcasts of Europe. There was 
no necessity of peopling the United States 

5 Pennsylvania Packet, February 11, 1790. 



42 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

thus. He favored guarded admission and a 
term of probation. 

Boudinot (N. J.) opposed the amendment. 
He would rather increase the term of resi- 
dence to two years, and omit the office-hold- 
ing restriction. One speaker proposed that, if 
the residence requirement was omitted, a 
clause be added to deprive of their citizenship 
those who left the country and remained 
abroad a given time. Otherwise merchants 
and sea captains would evade the payment of 
duties by merely taking an oath of intent to 
reside in the United States. Another thought 
the mode of the bill was much too easy. Va- 
rious states, and Great Britain in particular, 
required a special act of the legislature to 
naturalize. He wished to amend to leave 
naturalization to the state legislatures. One 
member proposed to receive farmers, manu- 
facturers, and mechanics on liberal terms, but 
to exclude merchants and factors, and also 
criminals. Other propositions were to in- 
invalidate land titles, if residence was inter- 
rupted within three years; to grant inherit- 
ance rights in the United States only when 
the favor was reciprocated by European na- 
tions; to make easy the return of Tories to 
citizenship; and to recommit the bill to pro- 
vide for the case of children born abroad. 



ACT OF 1790 43 

Sedgwick saw no extrication from a wilder- 
ness of ideas more various than on any other 
question. The committee rose, and the 
House recommitted the bill to a special com- 
mittee of ten members. 6 Its later course has 
been given in outline. 

Maclay in his Journal commented upon the 
proceedings in the Senate each day that the 
bill was before it, and must be quoted in de- 
tail. On March 8 he said : The naturaliza- 
tion bill was taken up. The debates were ex- 
ceedingly lengthy, and a great number of 
amendments were moved. Morris [his col- 
league] stood by me in one to enable aliens 
to hold lands. I engaged warmly on every 
question. It is a vile bill, illiberal and void of 
philanthropy, and needed mending much. We 
complained 7 that such an ungenerous bill 
should be sent us — or at least I did. They 
answered, "You have little to do," and that 
they had sent us employment. 

The following day he had to wrangle with 
the New England men alone on the naturali- 
zation bill till nearly one o'clock. Johnston 
(N. C.) took part in some degree with him. 
His success had been tolerable — but such 
shuffling and want of candor! He had cer- 

e Annals of Congress, First Congress, Second Session, 1 147-61; 
Pennsylvania Packet, February n, 1790. 

7 To the Pennsylvania members of the House. 



44 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

tainly gained greatly, though. They had 
failed twice the day before in the attempt to 
throw out the two-years'-residence require- 
ment; and his amendments went to cure this 
defect with respect to holding lands. Many 
members then declared their dislike of the 
two years, and wished the bill committed for 
the purpose of having that part rejected. He 
had agreed, but they were very unlucky in 
the committee they got. 

We Pennsylvanians act as if we believed that God 
made of one blood all the families of the earth; but the 
eastern people seem to think that he made none but New 
England folks. 

It was strange that they were born under re- 
publican forms and were so contracted on the 
subject of general philanthropy. Pennsyl- 
vania was used to the reception and adoption 
of strangers, but there was no class of people 
that she received with such diffidence as the 
eastern people. They really had the worst 
characters of any people that offered them- 
selves for citizens. Yet they were the ones 
who affected the greatest fear of being con- 
taminated with foreign manners, customs, and 
vices. Perhaps they were justly fearful as to 
adopting any of the latter, for they certainly 
had enough already. 

Three days later the committee had re- 



ACT OF 1790 45 

ported, but far short of the points which he 
wished established. There really seemed a 
spirit of malevolence against Pennsylvania 
in the business. She had been very liberal on 
the subject of admitting strangers to citizen- 
ship; she had benefited and did still benefit by 
it. Some characters seemed disposed to de- 
prive them of those benefits. He had moved 
a postponement of a day, which was easily 
carried, that they might consider the amend- 
ment. Izard (S. C.) had snapped, ill-natured 
as a cur, and said "No" alone. 

Four more days of debate and part of another 
followed. The same illiberality still possessed 
the New England men. "Immigration is a 
source of population to us and they wish to 
deprive us of it." Maclay was dissatisfied 
with the work of his colleague, Morris. 
King (N. Y.) was as much against them as 
any, but he did it in an indirect way. Again : 

All our old arguments went over and over again. 
The fact is, the adoption of strangers has set Pennsyl- 
vania far ahead of her sister states. They are spiteful and 
envious, and wish to deprive her of this source of popula- 
tion; but it will scarcely do to avow openly such ungener- 
ous conduct. It therefore must be done under various 
pretenses and legal distinctions. Two years' residence was 
insisted on in the bill. We cared not for this, but let the 
stranger hold land the moment he comes, etc., etc. Two 
law opinions were supported in the debates of the day : 8 
8 March 17. 



46 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

one that the power of holding lands was a feature of 
naturalization; that lands, etc., could not be held without 
it. This doctrine was pushed so far by Ellsworth [Conn.] 
as to declare that the rights of electors, being elected, etc., 
should attend and be described in the act of naturalization. 
All that could be said would not support this doctrine. 
Ellsworth was even so absurd as to suppose, if a man 
acquired the right of suffrage in one state, he had it in all, 
etc. This doctrine it was seen would not carry, and now 
one more conformable to the common law was set up. 

It was alleged that the disability of an alien to hold 
lands arose from the common law, and was separable from 
the rights of naturalization, as in the case of denization in 
England, where the crown could confer the right of giving, 
receiving, and holding real property. When an alien, there- 
fore, was enabled to hold real estate, it was in reality by 
repealing part of the common law with respect to him ; not 
by giving a power, but taking away a disability. It, there- 
fore, strictly speaking rested with the respective states 
whether they would repeal the common law with respect to 
aliens touching the point of holding property, and, being a 
pure state concern, had no occasion to be made any men- 
tion of in the naturalization act, but must remain to be 
settled by the different states by law, as well as the rights 
of election, etc. We of Pennsylvania contended hard to 
have a clause for empowering aliens to hold, etc. but the 
above reasoning prevailed, and we lost it. 

After another day's debate, he continued: 
From the most accurate observation I have been able 
to make the conduct of the members has been influenced by 
the following motives : as Pennsylvania is supposed likely 
to derive most benefit by migrations, the Eastern members 
are disposed to check it as much as they can. Jersey 
nearly indifferent; Delaware absolutely so; Maryland as 



ACT OF 1790 47 

Jersey; Virginia unrepresented; North Carolina favorable; 
South Carolina and Georgia want people much but they 
fear the migrations, and will check them rather than run 
the chance of importing people who may be averse to slav- 
ery. Hence the bill passed the House [Senate] nearly as 
it came up from the representatives. 

The governing ideas, however, seem to be the follow- 
ing: That the holding of property was separable from and 
not actually connected with naturalization; that laws and 
regulations relating to property, not being among the 
powers granted to Congress, remained with the different 
States. Therefore, Congress would be guilty of an assump- 
tion of power if they touched it ; that the holding of prop- 
erty was a common law right, and the disability of aliens to 
hold property from that quarter. King [N. Y.], Patterson 
[N.J.], Bassett [Del.], Read [Del.], Henry [Md.], Johns- 
ton [N. C], all finally settled in this way, Ellsworth dead 
against this; the holding property (real) a feature insepar- 
able from naturalization, etc. Strong [Mass.] rather in- 
clined to Ellsworth, Dr. Johnson [Conn.] said about as 
much on one side as on the other. Few, too, is said to be 
a lawyer; but, though he spoke a great deal, he did not 
seem to enter into the distinctions. For our parts we 
wished the naturalization bill to be in exact conformity as 
possible to the existing laws relating to aliens in Pennsyl- 
vania; and this, I am convinced, would have been the 
case had it not been for that low spirit which contaminates 
public characters as well as private life. 

It appears that all over Europe where the civil law pre- 
vails, aliens hold property. It is the common law of 
England that deprives them of holding real estate. The 
common law has been received by us, and with it this con- 
sequence. However, since we cannot get the rights of 
property fully acknowledged, it is best that the naturaliza- 
tion bill say nothing about it. 9 

9 Maclay's Journal, 208-11, 213-17. 



48 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

The new law provided for the naturaliza- 
tion of free white aliens after two years' resi- 
dence in the United States, upon application 
to any common law court of record in the 
state where they had resided for one year. 
They were to satisfy the court of their good char- 
acter, and take an oath administered by the 
court to support the Constitution of the 
United States. Minor children resident in 
the United States at the time became citizens 
of the United States also. Children born 
abroad of citizens were to be natural-born 
citizens of the United States, unless the father 
had never resided in the United States. Any 
citizen already proscribed by a state was not 
to be readmitted to citizenship except by the 
act of the legislature of the proscribing state. 



CHAPTER IV 

THE ACT OF 1795 

At the beginning of the session of 1794-95, 
a House committee 1 prepared a bill to amend 
the act of 1790. The measure, reported by 
Madison as chairman, was debated at length, 2 
variously amended, and, by recommittal, lost 
its original character as an amendment to the 
act of 1790, and became a substitute for it. 
Further debate 3 and several amendments 
prepared it for the Senate. 

No adequate conception of the original 
bill can be gained from the published records. 
Dexter (Mass.) introduced the debate in com- 
mittee of the whole. He earnestly called at- 
tention to the importance and necessity of 
amending the existing law. He described 
the present easy access to citizenship as dan- 
gerous and insufficient to prevent improper 
persons from being incorporated with the 
American people. Longer time was absolute- 
ly necessary in which to detect persons lack- 
ing natural attachment for, and prepossessed 

1 Madison, Dexter, Cairnes; appointed December 8, reported 
December 15. 

2 On December 22, 26, 29, 30, 31; January 1 and 2. 
s On January 6, 7, and 8. 

49 



5o NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

against, the United States. The importance 
of the general subject was emphasized by- 
declarations that America was the last and 
only asylum for vagabonds and fugitives, and 
that the establishment of uniform rules of 
naturalization was one of the grand objects of 
the Constitution. His motion to strike out 
the two-years'-residence requirement, leaving 
the blank to be filled later, was supported by 
forty-five members. 

Dexter, continuing, referred to the facility 
with which foreign agents could take the oath 
in order to save tonnage charges. He pro- 
posed an amendment to remedy this evil, and 
a proviso that those who renounced all foreign 
allegiance forever, and declared on oath their 
intention of becoming citizens, should pay no 
more tonnage dues than they would if fully 
naturalized. Giles opposed favors to mercan- 
tile people, since they were the least of any 
attached to the country. Dexter thought 
some of them brought large capital. Madison 
said that the clause belonged to the commer- 
cial regulations, not here ; and the motion was 
withdrawn. 

Giles proposed that a special law of the 
state abandoned be required to reinstate per- 
sons expatriating themselves. Tracy (Conn.) 
did not favor perpetual allegiance; neverthe- 



ACT OF 1795 5i 

less, he thought it ill policy to admit a man 
back after he had expatriated himself, when 
he must have lost real attachment to any gov- 
ernment. The amendment proposed, even if 
proper, made return too easy. He suggested 
that a law of the United States, evidently a 
private bill for each case, be required also. 
To this Giles agreed. However, further dis- 
cussion showed legal and constitutional diffi- 
culties in the way of such a course, and this 
amendment was withdrawn. Certainly it con- 
flicted with the constitutional requirement of 
uniformity in the naturalization law. It is 
important to note the very general assump- 
tion that attachment to one or another kind of 
government was what determined men's mi- 
grations from country to country. This idea 
was so prominent that the element of fact rep- 
resented by it must have been considerable, 
and the fact has an important bearing upon 
the question of the character of the emigrants 
generally. 

The bill did not yet meet the approval of 
Dexter. He moved that no alien be admitted 
except on the oath of two creditable witness- 
es, certifying that in their opinion he was of 
good moral character and attached to the wel- 
fare of the country. His colleague, Sedgwick, 
supported him. The present time of Euro- 



52 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

pean war was inauspicious for the indiscrimi- 
nate admission of aliens. He had always op- 
posed the government policy. Republican 
character was hard to form. Greece, Rome, 
and the Swiss jealously guarded their citizen- 
ship. They should take warning also from 
Saxon, Danish, and Norman England, and not 
invite or bribe the undesirable. America 
should husband its wealth in land, for many 
would be dependent when it was gone. The 
two amendments proposed 4 would check the 
number of emigrants and not exclude the 
worthy. 5 

Giles 6 wished to amend by substituting for 
"attached to the welfare of this country," in 
Dexter's amendment, "attached to a Repub- 
lican form of government." Dexter preferred 
"attached to the constitution of the United 
States." Giles had little or no objection, but 
soon after had the amendment changed to 
"attached to the principles of the government 
of the United States." In the final form "gov- 
ernment" is changed to "constitution," and 
the phrase reads, "attached to the principles 
of the constitution of the United States." 

W. J. Dayton would want a court to de- 
termine the nature of evidence submitted. 

4 Requiring longer residence and evidence of character. 

6 The end of the first day's debate. 9 December 26. 



ACT OF 1795 53 

Poor men were more desirable than mer- 
chants, and it would be hard for them to get 
two witnesses. Madison agreed that it would 
perhaps be difficult for many citizens, who 
might have moved about, to find two reputa- 
ble witnesses who could swear to the purity 
of their principles for three years back. 7 He 
objected to requiring men to swear that they 
preferred the Constitution. They might be 
honest in determining to support the govern- 
ment, and yet think some other form better. 
Dexter, in reply, mentioned the abuses that 
had happened in the present form of ad- 
mitting citizens, and said that the poor, if 
deserving, could get proofs as easy as the 
rich. Murray (Md.) was indifferent if not 
fifty emigrants came to the continent in a 
year. It was unjust to hinder, but impolitic 
to encourage, them. They might contami- 
nate. The amendment requiring two witness- 
es as to the moral character and political 
opinions of candidates for naturalization then 
passed. 

On the 29th an effort to strike out "moral" 
from the phrase "good moral character" in 
the amendment was successfully opposed, on 
the grounds that the word had nothing to do 

7 The reference to three years at this time is inexplicable. The 
time between declaration of intention and admission must have been 
fixed before the five years' residence period was determined. 



54 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

with religion, and that to omit it would slan- 
der the American character. 

Mr. Sedgwick desired to give property- 
rights without suffrage, but did not know 
whether the Constitution authorized it or not. 
This raised again in the House the old ques- 
tion which, according to M delay's Journal* 
was settled in the Senate during the debate of 
1790, in strict accordance with modern ideas; 
but there is no report of further discussion 
upon it. The clause last considered passed, 
and the discussion recurred to a question pre- 
sented by Giles and Tracy in the debate of 
the first day. A motion by Giles had been 
withdrawn, but it now appeared as the third 
resolution in the report under consideration, 9 
as follows : That an American citizen who had 
expatriated himself should not be restored to 
citizenship, without a special act of Congress 
and of the state that he had abandoned. Madi- 
son did not think that Congress by the Con- 
stitution had any authority to readmit Ameri- 
can citizens. It was granted to them to ad- 
mit only aliens. Sedgwick was very willing 
that they should never be readmitted. 

A motion by Hillhouse (Conn.), 10 that if 

8 See p. 47. 

9 Probably this was the report in preparation by the committee 
of the whole. 

10 December 30. 



ACT OF 1795 55 

any American citizen should thereafter be- 
come a citizen of a foreign state, he should 
not be again admitted, gave rise to more than 
three hours of debate. Dunlap's American 
Daily Advertiser says that it was in various 
shapes and difficult to summarize. 11 The An- 
nals report the ideas of two speakers only. 
Murray (Md.) hoped the motion would suc- 
ceed. It was unnecesary to decide whether 
men could expatriate themselves without the 
express consent of their country. He thought 
they could. The United States practice 
favored this view, for a government's accept- 
ance of allegiance presupposed the right to 
tender it. But there was little danger of 
worthy citizens throwing off their allegiance ; 
and, in any case, prohibiting a return would be 
a sufficient penalty. On the other hand, Bald- 
win (Ga.) expressed the strongest disap- 
proval of the idea of expatriating all persons 
who became citizens of another country. 
Many were made such merely as a mark of 
esteem, and had no design of renouncing their 
allegiance to the United States. 12 There is no 
report of the action by which this motion 
failed. 

11 January 5, 1799. 

12 In this connection an item from The Life and Letters of 
Joel Barlow, by C. B. Todd, (p. 97), is of interest. It refers to 
a list of seven "Anglais" in The Patriote of September 25, 1792, 



56 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Debate recurred the following day upon 
the proposition to require both state and fed- 
eral consent for repatriation. A motion by 
Smith (S. C.) to strike out this resolution, 
leaving the law as it stood, was rejected. It 
seemed thus in a fair way to become law, but 
did not appear again. Madison certainly op- 
posed what he held to be unconstitutional, 
and probably his committee, when again in 
charge of the bill, dropped this superlatively 
patriotic proposition. In later years, how- 
ever, the idea was revived several times, in- 
dicating the persistence of the thought that a 
man's change of country is due to choice of 
government, and that, therefore, one who has 
abandoned the United States has disapproved 
of its government, and, as a rule, cannot or 
will not adequately repent of this ill-doing. 

After some discussion, Giles moved to re- 
quire the renunciation in court of any titles of 
nobility. He thought this would be useful, if 
anything was to be done to prevent the im- 

upon whom the French National Convention proposed to confer the 
title of "Citizen of France." Among them was Joel Barlow. It 
continues: "Save Washington and Hamilton, Barlow was the only 
American on whom the privileges of French citizenship had been 
conferred." 

Moncure D. Conway, in the Writings of Paine (III, 97), states 
that on August 26, 1792, the National Assembly conferred the title 
of "French Citizens" on nineteen persons. Among them were 
Paine (spelled Payne), Washington, Hamilton, and Madison. The 
others include such names as Bentham, Wilberforce, Klopstock, 
Kosciusko, and Pestalozzi. Both Virginia and Maryland had natur- 
alized La Fayette. 



ACT OF 1795 57 

proper admixture of foreigners. Smith was 
entirely opposed to this. A similar attempt 
made in one of the state legislatures some 
years before was dropped as improper. The 
public mind was completely guarded against 
the introduction of titles, and they would 
never become current. Congress could not 
declare it a crime to call a man viscount. He 
doubted the constitutional right of the meas- 
ure, for they had no authority to take away 
titles. Dexter was averse to titles, but did 
not like to make laws against them. Page 
(Va.) highly recommended the motion. Giles 
urged that there was no harm in expressing 
what Dexter had said was implied in the Con- 
stitution. The strange turn in affairs in 
Europe had not been foreseen, nor the result- 
ing danger of an inundation of titled fugitives. 
Madison approved the motion. It was exactly 
the thing to exclude from citizenship those 
who would not renounce titles. The Revolu- 
tion would infallibly have abolished any titles 
existing here. With opposition from both 
South Carolina and Massachusetts, and sup- 
port reported only from his own state, Giles 
thought it best to withdraw his motion tem- 
porarily. 13 Madison said that the thing most 

18 The bill with amendments was at this point in the debate 
reported from the committee of the whole to the House. Discus- 
sion was renewed there the following day (January i, 1795), and 
the amendments reported were quickly agreed to. 



58 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

to be feared was that alien immigrants should 
obtain property in American shipping. They 
could thus clandestinely favor particular na- 
tions in trade. He would require a longer 
time for gaining certain trade rights, if he 
made any distinctions in the law. Giles, by 
renewing the motion for the renouncing of 
titles, 14 then prolonged the debate for two 
days. His amendment was as follows : 

And, in case any such alien applying for admission to 
become a citizen of the United States shall have borne any 
hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in 
the Kingdom or State from which he came, in addition to 
the requisites of this and the fore-recited act, he shall make 
an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in 
the court to which his application shall be made, before he 
shall be entitled to such admission; which renunciation 
shall be recorded in the said court. 

He declared that stronger evidence was 
necessary to make sure that all pretense of a 
title had been renounced. He had voted for 
clauses to guard against Jacobin extremes, 10 
and would now guard against the more dan- 
gerous aristocrats, of whom it was highly 
probable they would soon have great num- 
bers here. A large part of Europe had de- 
clared against titles, and there was no guess- 

14 It was first offered in committee of the whole, and now re- 
newed in the House. 

15 This may refer to any of the more stringent provisions of 
the bill, and especially to the renunciation of allegiance and the 
evidence required of attachment to the United States. 



ACT OF 1795 59 

ing where the process would stop. The French 
nobility numbered twenty thousand, a great 
proportion of whom might finally be expect- 
ed here. This fugitive nobility might acquire 
influence here, and there was no law to pre- 
vent them from voting or coming to Con- 
gress. 16 Dexter said that he was not very 
anxious about it, but opposed the amendment. 
Priestcraft had done more mischief than aris- 
tocracy. 

Madison took middle ground as to the im- 
portance of the question; apparently he had 
moderated his views somewhat since he had 
last spoken upon it. Republicanism, he 
thought, was likely to pervade Europe gen- 
erally, and it was hard to guess how many 
titled characters might be thrown out. It was 
reasonable that crowds of them coming here 
should be required to renounce everything 
contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. 
Hereditary titles were proscribed by the Con- 
stitution. He would not wish to have a citizen 
who refused the proposed oath. Page (Va.) 
believed the class principle would come in and 
produce mischievous effects here as else- 
where. He did not want to see a duke con- 
test an election to Congress with a citizen. 

16 Giles must here be taken to mean that a naturalized for- 
eigner might vote, and that one who had been seven years a citi- 
zen of the United States might be sent to Congress. 



60 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Sedgwick declared that, in taking the oath of 
allegiance, nobility was solemnly abjured, for 
that oath destroyed all connection with the 
old government. To his, "Why reprovide?" 
Giles retorted, "Why not provide for it direct- 
ly, if implied?" and declared that he should 
call for the yeas and nays on his motion. 
Nicholas (Va.) was sure that they ought to 
require an oath that the new citizen would 
never accept any title. 

Lee (Va.) was sorry they had so long agi- 
tated an unimportant matter. In the minds 
of some, the motion was characterized by 
frivolity and inefficiency. He saw no shadow 
of foundation to build alarm upon. One might 
in this free country call himself by any name 
or title. Not titles but privileges were the 
dangerous thing. By the equal division of es- 
tates here, individuals were prevented from 
being 17 so rich as to trample upon the necks 
of their equals. Personally, he was very in- 
different in the matter; but as tending to 
spread a false alarm, it was his duty to oppose 
the motion. Scott (Pa.) was for the motion 
on the ground that, it being unlawful to manu- 
facture titles here, it was 18 unlawful to import 
them. If the importation was allowed, titles 

17 1. e., "becoming." 

18 Probably "should be." 



ACT OF 1795 61 

would soon be as prevalent here as in 
England. 

At this point Dexter announced that he 
would vote for Giles's amendment with a fur- 
ther amendment for renouncing slaves. He 
offered the following : 

And, also, in case such alien shall, at the time of his 
application, hold any person in slavery, he shall in the same 
manner renounce all right and claim to hold such person in 
slavery. 

Thatcher (Mass.) would add, "and that he 
never will possess slaves." Giles replied that 
he should think his amendment very import- 
ant, if such extraordinary resources were 
adopted against it. He was sorry to see 
slavery made a jest, and it had no proper con- 
nection with the subject. He owned slaves, 
regretted it, and should rejoice to be shown 
the way out. The thing was reducing itself 
as fast as it was prudent. Why was such op- 
position as this made to the call for the yeas 
and nays. Madison declared that Virginia 
was reducing the number of her slaves. The 
motion would have a bad effect upon the 
minds of the slaves, or he might vote for it. 
Nicholas (Va.) said that Dexter had more 
than once hinted a view that a slave-owner 
was unfit for the legislature of a republican 
form of government; and retorted that he 



62 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

should know something of slavery. Dexter 
replied that the call for the yeas and nays was 
made with the design to hold up certain 
people to public odium. He would withdraw 
his amendment, if the Giles motion was with- 
drawn. Heath (Va.) said that the introduc- 
tion of slavery was highly improper. The 
Constitution forbade any proposal to abolish 
it for years to come. The amendment was 
offered in the face of an express article of 
the Constitution. Sedgwick declared, with 
some warmth, that the design in the yeas and 
nays call was to fix upon members a stigma as 
friends of nobility, when they were not so. In 
this agitated state the House adjourned, but 
renewed the discussion the next day, and in 
committee of the whole. 19 

Bourne (R. I.) 20 was against both amend- 
ments. There were numerous checks against 
nobility in the Constitution. A man could 
renounce an hereditary title only for himself; 
his children would still inherit it. At this 
point Dexter withdrew his motion, in the hope 
that the yeas and nays would not be taken; 
and Giles then agreed to give up his part of 
the call. Hillhouse was convinced by reflec- 
tion that the amendment would indirectly es- 

19 Annals, January 2, 1795, p. 1041. 

20 The debate does not show which Bourne this is, but th« 
vote of the Rhode Island member was against both amendments. 



ACT OF 1795 6 3 

tablish the principle that privileged orders 
might exist among them, an idea that he re- 
jected and reprobated. Privileged orders 
were merely local in privileges, yet this 
motion tended to decide otherwise. He would 
exclude titled foreigners from naturalization 
to the extent of voting and office-holding. 
Later he declared that he would support an 
amendment to exclude all foreigners from any 
office. The present amendment, however, 
was trifling and would make them ridiculous. 
Wadsworth (Conn.) knew nothing so impos- 
sible as the establishment of an American 
nobility, and the amendment was entirely use- 
less. Fisher Ames (Mass.) opposed giving 
effect by law to chimerical whimsies, both 
trifling and worthless. Nothing was more 
opposite to just principles than the extremes 
of those principles. 

Smith (Md.) said that the debate at first 
bore a trifling appearance, but had called up 
all the warmth of the House. Gentlemen 
from the eastern states slighted the amend- 
ment as unnecessary, but southern members 
said that they had some reason to be appre- 
hensive. Why not yield to them in concilia- 
tion? Murray (Md.) saw only ghosts of no- 
bility involved, yet favored the motion for his 
colleague's reason. Madison expected a 



54 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

British revolution, and expected the British 
peerage to be thronging this country. He 
would sympathize with them, but not admit 
them to citizenship until they were constitu- 
tionally qualified. Giles, in replying to the 
opposition, said that it was admitted that the 
Constitution and the will of the people favored 
the amendment. Other speakers again called 
the proposition totally trifling legislation. 
Congress could not hinder the use of titles. 
The Constitution even permitted any non- 
office-holding citizen of the United States to 
receive a title from a foreign king. A natural- 
ized alien could accept his title again an hour 
after his naturalization, in spite of any law of 
Congress. 

The House at length became very im- 
patient for the question, but discussion con- 
tinued as to whether the call for the yeas and 
nays was still in force. Two motions were 
made for it. Sedgwick appealed to the mem- 
bers, and one of them was withdrawn. This 
dispute ended when Blount (N. C.) declared 
that the yeas and nays must and should be 
taken, and twenty-three members seconded 
his call. Dexter immediately renewed his 
anti-slave-holding amendment, and required 
a roll-call upon it. His motion was lost by 28 
to 63, while that of Giles carried by 59 to 32. 



ACT OF 1795 6 5 

Only five members voted for both amend- 
ments, and only nine voted against both. The 
five were : from Massachusetts, 2 ; from Rhode 
Island, Delaware, and Maryland, each 1. The 
nine were : from Connecticut, 3 ; from Penn- 
sylvania, 2; and 1 each from Rhode Island, 
New Jersey, Virginia, and North Carolina. 
Members who voted for renouncing slaves 
were: from Massachusetts, 12; from New 
York, 5; from Connecticut, 4; from Pennsyl- 
vania, 2; and 1 each from New Hampshire, 
Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and 
Maryland. Against renouncing slaves the vote 
was: from Virginia, 19, from North Carolina, 
9; from Pennsylvania, 8; from Maryland and 
South Carolina, each 5 ; from New York, Con- 
necticut, and New Hampshire, each 3 ; and 2 
each from New Jersey, Vermont, Georgia, and 
Kentucky. After this vote the bill was re- 
committed, and came back to the House as a 
measure to supersede entirely the act of 1790. 
The word "forever" was stricken from the 
renouncing clause, and then the questions in- 
volved in filling the blanks were discussed at 
some length. 21 The reports of this part of the 
debate are very incomplete. Madison said 
that there was danger of losing the bill alto- 
gether by mere waste of time, if they descend- 

21 January 6, 7, 8. 



66 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

ed to discriminate all the qualities of a citizen. 
Both the ten years and the seven years that 
had been proposed for the first blank were 
"by much too long," and would oblige the 
friends of the bill to oppose it. Baldwin (Ga.) 
suggested that the Constitution qualified for a 
senator in nine years. 22 Fitzsimmons said 
that ten years were much too long, and would 
make aliens enemies to the government. 
Boudinot referred to the recent executive 
proclamation that the country was an asylum 
to the oppressed of all nations, 23 and thought 
it bad policy to admit them and then refuse 
them, for nine or ten years, the rights of citi- 
zens. 

So far as the very incompletely reported 
debates show, defining naturalization by de- 
grees met with no favor. There is also no 
suggestion that states could grant the right 
to hold real estate on their own terms, apart 
from naturalization. 

The bill passed rapidly through the Sen- 
ate. 24 There was debate on a motion to in- 
sert in the first section : 

22 In fact it was a citizen and not an alien that was thus 
qualified by the Constitution. 

23 A Thanksgiving proclamation of President Washington, is- 
sued during the debate on this bill (January i, 1795), contained 
the following: "to beseech the Kind Author of these blessings....; 
to render this country more and more a safe and propitious asylum 
for the unfortunate of other countries." 

2 * The three readings occurred on January 9, 14, and 15. 



ACT OF 1795 6 7 

That no alien shall hereafter become a citizen of the United 
States, or any of them, except in the manner prescribed by 
this act. 25 

It was agreed, however, to insert the words 
"any of" after "citizen of" in the clause that 
as amended reads : "That any alien, being a 
free white person, may be admitted to become 
a citizen of any of the United States, on the 
following conditions;" and then, by a vote of 
13 to 11, "and not otherwise" was added. On 
the last vote the yeas were : From New Eng- 
land, 7, and 1 each from New York, Pennsyl- 
vania, Maryland, North Carolina, South Caro- 
lina, and Kentucky ; the nays : 2 each from 
Vermont and New Jersey, and 1 each from 
New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Vir- 
ginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Ken- 
tucky. Apart from a rather strong favorable 
bias in New England, sectionalism scarcely 
appears in this vote. Thus the words "a 
citizen of the United States" disappeared from 
the bill. The idea that citizenship pertained 
to the individual states dominated the Senate. 
The new relation determined by naturaliza- 
tion was state citizenship. The power vested 
in Congress to establish a uniform rule of 
naturalization was the power of making state 

28 This motion was withdrawn for amendment the following 
day, after the failure of an effort to commit the bill and the amend- 
ment. 



68 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

citizens from aliens. By the final phrase the 
assertion is made that this power is an ex- 
clusive one. It can hardly be that the nega- 
tive vote upon it represents only opposition 
to this view. It is more likely that it com- 
prises also some who deemed that the Consti- 
tution itself was sufficiently explicit in the 
matter. 

The question of extending the act to the 
territories first appeared in connection with a 
motion to provide for the naturalization of 
aliens, dwelling in the territories southwest 
and northwest of the Ohio, in the territorial 
courts upon the same terms as elsewhere. 
The bill and this motion were committed to 
King (N. Y.), Tazewell (Va.), and Brown 
(Ky.) for consideration and report. King 
reported 26 two amendments, which were 
adopted. One was a substitute for the first 
paragraph of section i, in which "may be ad- 
mitted to become a citizen of the United 
States, or any of them," replaced "may be ad- 
mitted to become a citizen of any of the 
United States." The other struck out "there- 
of" from section 2, where it read : 

That any alien now residing within the limits and 
under the jurisdiction of the United States, may be admitted 
to become a citizen thereof, on his declaring .... 

26 January 22, 1795. 



ACT OF 1795 6 9 

The necessary changes were made to give 
courts in the territories power to naturalize 
therein. 27 A final proposition, lost, was to 
add a clause to the bill in effect that every 
person naturalized should, at the time of his 
naturalization, specify the names of his minor 
children resident in the United States; and 
that the clerk of the court should send a cer- 
tificate of the naturalization, and a list of the 
children, to the secretary of state for record 
at the seat of the general government. 

This proposition also included provision for 
a fee to the clerk of the court for each per- 
son naturalized. On this day, January 26, 
1795, the bill passed the Senate with amend- 
ments, which were at once agreed to by the 
House of Representatives. It became a law 
three days later, with the title: "An act to 
.establish an uniform rule of naturalization; 
and to repeal the act heretofore passed upon 
that subject." 

The conditions of naturalization under the 
new law were : 

27 The provision for naturalization in the territories having 
disappeared after its reference to King's committee, it was moved 
to add at the end of the bill: "Be it further enacted, That the 
provisions contained in this act shall extend to the Northwestern 
and Southwestern Territories respectively." After debate on two 
days (wholly unreported), it was agreed to amend this motion by 
a provision to insert the necessary phrases in sec. i. On a later 
day (January 26) this amended amendment was adopted as follows: 
"In line five, after 'the States' insert 'or of the Territories North- 
west or South, of the river Ohio,' " and provision was made for 
inserting "or Territory" after "State" in line 11. 



70 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

i. Three years before naturalization a 
declaration of intention must be sworn to in 
a state or federal court. This must cover two 
points — intention to become a citizen and in- 
tention to renounce all foreign allegiance. 

2. At the time of applying for citizenship, 
the alien must declare on oath that he has re- 
sided five years in the United States (and one 
year in the state or territory), that he does 
renounce all foreign allegiance, and that he 
will support the Constitution of the United 
States. 

3. The court must be satisfied of his resi- 
dence, good moral character during the re- 
quired five years, and that he has been for that 
time "attached to the principles of the Con- 
stitution of the United States, and well dis- 
posed to the good order and happiness of the 
same." 

4. Any title or order of nobility must be 
renounced. 

The bill made an exception in favor of 
aliens resident in the United States at the time 
of its passage. They were to be naturalized 
upon declaring two years' residence, and 
meeting the other requirements above. The 
provisions of the act of 1790 in regard to 
children and proscribed persons were re- 
enacted. New points in the law were : longer 



ACT OF 1795 7i 

residence and a preliminary declaration of in- 
tention, renunciation of former allegiance and 
of any title or order of nobility, more specific 
mention of the courts empowered to natural- 
ize, 28 and proof of attachment to the Consti- 
tution and the country. No requirement of 
the former law was omitted. 

28 The act of 1790 mentioned "any common law court of record 
in the state." This act specified "the supreme, superior, district 
or circuit court of some one of the states or of the territories .... 
or a circuit or district court of the United States." 






CHAPTER V 

THE ACT OF 1798 

During the special session of 1797 1 Brooks 
(N. Y.), in the House, expressed himself as 
thinking that the naturalization law allowed 
foreigners to become citizens too soon. His 
motion for a committee to prepare a bill to 
amend it was laid on the table. 2 

The inaugural address of President John 
Adams approached this subject only in its 
reference to dangers, if anything partial or 
extraneous should infect the purity of elec- 
tions. 3 His speech at the opening of Congress 
in November contained no specific reference 
to the matter. His biographer and grandson, 
C. F. Adams, declares 4 that he certainly de- 
clined to insert recommendations, to restrict 
the rights of aliens and to restrict naturaliza- 
tion, that were submitted to him by his of- 
ficers. 5 A part of the address, however, re- 
lated to the protection of commerce and the 
defense of the country; and it was referred by 

1 July 1. 

2 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, First Session, 421. 

8 John Adams' Works, IX, 108. 

4 Life of John Adams, II, 300. 

5 Presumably, members of his cabinet. 

72 



ACT OF 1798 73 

the House to a committee 6 to inquire and re- 
port concerning any expedient measures. 7 

Months passed without a report touching 
aliens or naturalization. At length a member, 
Coit (Conn.), said that from the present situ- 
ation he apprehended that changes in the 
naturalization law would be necessary. He 
proposed a resolution that the above-men- 
tioned committee be directed to inquire and 
report whether it was not expedient to sus- 
pend or amend the act of 1795. Objection 
was made to the form of his resolution, and it 
lay on the table two days. 8 It passed then 
with the wording changed to the "usual 
form," so that it directed the committee "to in- 
quire and report whether any, and what, al- 
terations may be necessary" in the Naturali- 
zation Act of 1795. The same resolution also 
instructed the same committee to consider 
and report upon the expediency of establish- 
ing by law regulations respecting aliens ar- 
riving, or residing, within the United States. 9 

About two weeks later, Sewall, for the 
committee, made a partial report, which was 
referred to a Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union. 10 The committee 

6 Of seven members. 

7 House Journal, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 93. 

8 April 17-19. 

9 House Journal, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 266. 

10 Ibid., 281. 



74 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

declared that by the act of 1795 aliens were 
permitted to become citizens of the United 
States when there was not sufficient evidence 
of their attachment to the laws and welfare 
of the country to entitle them to such a privi- 
lege, and that a longer residence before their 
admission was essential. It was also of the 
opinion that some precautions against the 
promiscuous reception and residence of aliens, 
while always advisable, were then more ap- 
parently necessary and important, especially 
for securing and removing those who might 
be suspected of hostile intentions. Three 
resolutions were recommended, in substance 
as follows: (1) that provision ought to be 
made to prolong the residence to be proved by 
an alien before he should be admitted to be- 
come a citizen of the United States or of any 
state; (2) that provision ought to be made for 
a detailed report and registry of aliens in the 
United States; (3) that provision be made for 
securing or removing alien enemies, males of 
fourteen years, after proclamation by the 
president and time allowed for removal, ex- 
cepting such as had a passport or a license to 
remain. 11 

These resolutions were reported from the 
committee of the whole with very slight 

^State Papers, XX, 180. 



ACT OF 1798 75 

amendment; the first and second were adopt- 
ed, and the third was postponed in order that 
amendments to it might be debated. The 
committee that made the inquiry was then 
ordered to bring in a bill, and on May 15, 
Sewall presented a bill supplementary to and 
to amend the act of 1795. 12 Three days later 
the Alien Enemies' Bill was reported, and the 
House, by a vote of 51 to 40, authorized the 
president to raise a provisional army in prepa- 
ration for the expected war with France. 13 
It is thus seen that the new Naturalization 
Act was closely connected with the war meas- 
ures of the Federalist party. The bill report- 
ed received several amendments in committee 
of the whole, was further amended in the 
House, 14 and passed on May 22. It returned 
from the Senate, three weeks later, with 
amendments which the House at once ac- 
cepted; 15 and was signed by the president on 
June 18, 1798. 

The debate on the resolutions began with 
the statement that five years of residence was 
a much shorter period than France required; 
and that the committee thought that at least 
ten years should be required, but might leave 

12 House Journal, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 284, 285, 
295. 

13 Ibid., 301, 303. 14 May 21; ibid., 305. 
16 June 13, 1798; ibid., 335, 337. 



76 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

the time a blank in the bill. Harper (S. C.) 
referred to what he called the mistake that 
the country fell into, in forming its constitu- 
tions/ 6 of admitting foreigners. It had been 
productive of very great evils, which he feared 
would greatly increase. It was proper, and 
the proper time, to declare that only birth 
should entitle a man to citizenship. The 
United States had had experience enough to 
cure it of its former folly of belief. He pro- 
posed, as an amendment to the first resolu- 
tion, 

that provision ought to be made by law for preventing any 
person becoming entitled to the rights of American citizen- 
ship except by birth. 

This was declared to be a substitute and was 
ruled out of order. 17 

Otis (Mass.) moved that no person alien 
born and not then a citizen of the United 
States should thereafter be capable of holding 
any office under the United States. Harper 
moved to add, "or of voting at the election of 
any members of the Legislature of the United 
States, or of any State." This, he said, would 
permit aliens to gain property rights and resi- 
dence, but not citizenship. He continued in 
a radical and at times sarcastic strain. He 

16 I. e., state and federal. 

17 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 1567. 



ACT OF 1798 77 

would let the descendants of aliens, if born 
here, have rights. If the native-born citizens 
were not adequate to the duties of the gov- 
ernment, they might invite foreigners to do 
business for them. If they were adequate, he 
could see no reason for admitting strangers 
who could not have the same view of govern- 
ment as the native-born. He was convinced 
that 

it was an essential policy, which lay at the bottom of civil 
society, that none but persons born in the country should 
.... take part in the government. 

To this there might be individual exceptions, 
but the Congress must maintain the general 
rule. They would better have adopted this 
principle sooner; he hoped they would do it 
then. Champlin (R. I.) suggested the intro- 
duction of the word "civil" before "officers" 
in the amendment, so as not to exclude 
foreigners from the military and naval service 
as officers. Smith (S. C.) believed that the 
first resolution was an ex post facto one, and 
that it could not be intended to limit the rights 
of persons who had been two or three years 
in the United States under the five-year law. 
Otis thought that the objections of Smith 
were partly well founded, and he would avoid 
them by providing for those that had declared 



78 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

intentions of becoming citizens. He wished 
time to consider the matter further. 

The Annals then state that Harper with- 
drew his amendment in order to examine the 
Constitution, "it being suggested that the con- 
stitution did not permit restraining states in 
the admission of citizens." 18 This, I think, 
must be accepted as having clear and positive 
reference to state, as distinct from United 
States, citizenship. The constitutional point 
raised was a difficult one, not easily met, at any 
rate, by the anti-federalist or state-rights in- 
terests. It cannot have been dependent upon 
the 1808 clause, unless it is maintained that 
"migration or importation" includes admis- 
sion to citizenship. The objection that the 
power vested in Congress to establish a uni- 
form rule of naturalization was not exclusive, 
seems, indeed, to have been made for a time; 
but it is almost unintelligible, and must have 
found its support chiefly in interest rather than 
in reason. At any rate, it can scarcely have 
counted for much with a man intent upon ex- 
cluding foreigners from office. He would not 
want Pennsylvania, for example, to retain the 
power of making citizens of the United States. 
One, and only one, insuperable constitutional 
objection to "restraining states in the admis- 

18 Op. cit., 1569; May 2, 1798. 



ACT OF 1798 79 

sion of citizens" is readily found, and it ade- 
quately explains the allusion. It is "the 
Electors in each State shall have the Quali- 
fications requisite for Electors in the most 
numerous Branch of the State Legislature." 
The nearly inevitable conclusion from this 
was that the qualifications of voters in the 
various states were to differ, and were to be 
determined by each state for itself. All the 
existing facts in state governments favored 
this conclusion. Nothing could be opposed 
to it except the uniform rule of naturalization 
clause, or some implication in it; and the con- 
ception of two distinct citizenships, state and 
federal — a conception in fullest harmony with, 
and with the closest analogies to, many fea- 
tures of the dual government system — met 
any difficulty therein. Summing up, then, it 
seems that the Constitution not only did not 
prevent "restraining states in the admission" 
of federal citizens, but did itself restrain them; 
also, that it clearly implied that there was 
to be no "restraining states in the admission" 
of state citizens. The conclusion is that it 
was this latter fact that was brought out in 
the debate in the language reported. 

Venable (Va.) called Otis's resolution a 
proposition to amend the Constitution. The 
latter had fixed the rights of citizens. For- 



80 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

eigners must be refused citizenship or ad- 
mitted to all of citizens' rights. Congress 
had no power of saying that men entitled by 
the Constitution to hold office should not hold 
offices. Otis held that citizenship did not 
always include office-holding; that no alien 
was ever permitted to hold office in Great 
Britain. 19 Macon (N. C.) declared that a 
citizen must have the rights of citizenship, 
and might be elected or appointed to any 
office in spite of Congress. Congress could 
only keep him from becoming a citizen. Otis 
replied that Congress, having absolute power 
(it could exclude entirely by fixing a long 
term), had conditional power, which was a 
mere modification of the former. He opposed 
opening a door to the intrigues of other coun- 
tries. Certain countries paid chief attention 
to influencing the internal affairs of countries 
they wished to dominate, and these might get 
persons into the government. America was 
now getting to be more important, and this 
was a reason for the exclusion sought. Yet 

19 12 and 13 Wm. 3, ch. 2, provided that no person born out 
of the kingdom, except of English parents, though naturalized, 
should be capable of holding any office under the king or of receiv- 
ing grants. By 1 Geo. 1 it was provided that there should be no 
future naturalization without a clause declaring such disability, and 
that no naturalization bill should be received without such a clause. 
The clause is, accordingly, found in all later acts on the subject 
before the Naturalization Act of 1870. See 13 Geo. 2, ch. 7, and 20 
Geo. 2, ch. 44, which remained in force until 1870. (English 
Statutes at Large), 



ACT OF 1798 81 

he would accept the plan for extending the 
residence term. Sitgreaves (Pa.) desired to 
attain the object sought, but would avoid con- 
stitutional embarrassment. The way to do 
this was to extend the term of residence 
to prevent aliens ever becoming citizens. 
There was no doubt as to "member of Con- 
gress being an office." 

Otis then withdrew his amendment, and 
the three resolutions were agreed to by the 
committee of the whole without a dissenting 
voice. The House at once concurred in the 
first and second resolutions, but discussed the 
one that became the basis of the Alien Ene- 
mies' Act. The questions at issue were its 
effect upon immigration and upon the coun- 
try's institutions and independence. 

McDowell (N. C.) said that some parts of 
the country still wanted population, even if 
others did not, and he did not wish to dis- 
tress the minds of foreigners. Rutledge (S. 
C.) asserted that the change proposed would 
encourage immigration, by giving greater se- 
curity of good government. Foreigners came 
to America to live under good government. 
The president should have the power to send 
away any emissaries of a government even 
if not at war with it. 

Sitgreaves (Pa.) considered the proposed 



82 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

law an essential feature of the system of de- 
fense. There was a cankerworm in the heart 
of the country, and no occasion for specific 
proof of it. The fact was well understood by 
every member of the House. France ad- 
mitted no alien even to residence without a 
card of hospitality. The measure involved 
no danger to any persons that were well dis- 
posed. 

Allen (Conn.) moved to amend in favor of 
giving the president power at any time to re- 
move any alien, but soon after withdrew his 
amendment. He held that the citizens of sev- 
eral other countries were as dangerous as 
those of France, were equally hostile, were 
even more so. Recently there had been a vast 
number of naturalizations in Philadelphia to 
support a particular party in a particular elec- 
tion. French agents and diplomacy had over- 
come Venice, Switzerland, and Rome, when 
they were in a much less alarming situation 
than that of the United States. 

Otis's amendment, withdrawn in committee, 
came up again in some unknown way, and was 
defeated by a vote of 55 to 2j. Otis opposed, 
ineffectually, an effort to restrict the new 
power of the president to a state of declared 
war. He held that the measure was of no 
use, if not applicable to the existing state. 



ACT OF 1798 8 3 

Considerable discussion followed, and the 
question of a constitutional right to exclude 
aliens not enemies before 1808 was raised. 20 
In the outcome the resolutions were all re- 
ferred back to Sewall's committee, with in- 
structions to report bills. 21 

The debate in the House on the naturali- 
zation bill was mostly on one day. 22 Sewall's 
motion to fill the blank time between the 
declaration of intention and naturalization 
with five years carried, apparently without 
discussion. He followed it with a motion to 
fill the blank time of residence with fourteen 
years. McDowell did not wish to discourage 
immigration, and held it to be to their interest 
to attach foreigners to the country. He would 
not object to seven or nine years. The record 
states that fourteen years carried by a vote 
of 40 to 41. 23 Again, on Sewall's motion, an 
amendment carried to the effect that no alien 
be admitted to citizenship from a country at 
war with the United States. 

At this point Gallatin, the indomitable 
leader of the opposition to the Federalists, 

20 A finals of Congress, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 1570 f . ; 
May 3, 1798. 

21 House Journal, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 285, 290. 
The membership of the committee remained unchanged, except that 
Brooks (N. Y.) replaced Livingston (N. Y.). 

22 May 21, 1798. 

23 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 1776. 



84 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

who soon became so well hated by them that 
they aimed a constitutional amendment at him 
to exclude him from Congress, set himself 
earnestly to the task of protecting the inter- 
ests of aliens that were already in the United 
States. He began by inquiring as to the retro- 
spective effect of the proposed law. Three classes, 
he said, were to be affected by it. They were : 

i. Aliens who were in the United States 
before the adoption of the Constitution, and 
not naturalized by any state law before the 
passage of the act of 1790. 

2. All aliens who might have been natur- 
alized under the act of 1790. 

3. Those who had declared their inten- 
tion to become citizens under the act of 1795. 

He hoped that an exception would be made 
for all these. The law of 1795 had favored 
all aliens who were in the United States at 
the time of its passage. 

Gallatin dwelt at some length upon the 
anomalous conditions and the misunderstand- 
ings that had grown out of the change from 
state to federal control of naturalization, and 
spoke of the difficulties in the way of many 
residents of frontier districts in complying 
with the naturalization requirements. These 
points were brought up in explanation of the 



ACT OF 1798 85 

neglect of many aliens for a considerable time 
to become citizens, and to show that such neg- 
lect could not properly be held to imply a dis- 
regard for the privilege of citizenship. He 
said that there were "a great number" of per- 
sons in Pennsylvania who were not citizens of 
the United States, but who, nevertheless, be- 
lieved that they were citizens. He declared . 
that it was a common error in most of the 
states that naturalization by a state since 1790 
made the person a citizen of the United States. 
The mayor of Philadelphia, he said, had ad- 
mitted citizens under the state law until 1795, 
and these had considered themselves to be citi- 
zens of the United States. This opinion, that 
a state had a right to naturalize, although 
based upon a construction that he had always 
thought to be wrong, had until lately gen- 
erally prevailed. In Philadelphia, at the late 
election, respectable merchants, who had pre- 
viously obtained American register for their 
vessels on the presumption that they were 
citizens of the United States, were refused 
the suffrage. The same mistaken view as to 
the status of those admitted to citizenship by 
the states had prevailed in other parts of the 
Union. He presumed that since 1795 nearly 
all of those whose citizenship of the United 
States could be questioned, and who are near 



S6 NATURALIZATION IX UNITED STATES 

a court, had boon naturalized under the tod- 
oral act. People who were from two hundred 
to three hundred miles from a district court 
of the United States had not always had an 
opportunity to be naturalized, 

especially on account of a construction of the Act of 1705. 
which had prevailed in some counties of Pennsylvania, 
and which made it doubtful whether any court in the State, 
out of the city [i. e. Philadelphia], could administer the 
oath of citizenship, 

Now they had discovered that they were not 
citizens of the United States, and they had 
had no opportunity to become such since find- 
ing' it out. lie would give a limited period dur- 
ing' which those might still have the benefit of 
the existing law. 

Sewall defended the measure of his com- 
mittee, a majority of which, he declared, 
thought that no exception should be made. 
He himself was decidedly opposed to any al- 
teration. Those who had neglected their op- 
portunities could place no high value upon 
citizenship. They could already hold lauds. 
and, judging from the then distracted state of 
the country, it was not wise to make them eli- 
gible in five years to seats in the government. 
The United States had given unexampled lib- 
erty of citizenship, and it was then high time 
to remedy the resulting evils. The proposed 



ACT OF [798 87 

regulations were shown to be necessary by 
the existing conditions, and created no disad- 
vantage, for the persons affected had had lit- 
tle chance of becoming- members of the gov- 
ernment they had left. Their change in com- 
ing here had vastly improved their opportuni- 
ties. There was no good, bnt much danger, 
in the proposed change. 

Gallatin was unconvinced, and moved as an 
amendment, in accordance with the views 
that he had expressed, the following: that any 
alien, resident in the United States before the 
passage of the act of 1795, and any alien who 
had made the preliminary declaration re- 
quired by that act, might be naturalized under 
its provisions. 

Craik (Md.) would prevent any foreigner, 
coming thereafter, from ever becoming a citi- 
zen; yet he thought that retrospective action 
was unjust. His statements corroborated 
those of Gallatin as to the continued practice 
of state naturalization, and the existing uncer- 
tainties as to its effect. Many aliens, he said, 
were not naturalized under any law, while 
many others were naturalized under state 
laws. There was much doubt of the legality 
of the latter, though, he declared, in Mary- 
land and Virginia "foreigners are still nat- 
uralized by the states." 



88 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Bayard (Del.) said that, as states allowed 
aliens to vote for both state and United States 
offices, the only privilege denied to them was 
"the capacity of becoming members of the 
Federal Government.' , It was sound policy to 
deny this for the future, even to aliens already 
in the United States. The naturalization 
laws were no compact, but mere favors. In 
reference to favoring persons already in the 
United States, he thought that as many Ja- 
cobins and vagabonds had come within the 
last two years as might come in ten years 
more. Macon (N. C.) said that those with 
particular ends to be served were in already, 
and he would have regard to the lack of op- 
portunity and the ignorance of the others. 
Sewall asserted that the proposed amendment 
offered to all aliens in the United States the 
opportunity to make the required declaration 
before the law passed. 

There was, as a matter of fact, just four 
weeks between the introduction of this 
amendment and the enactment of the law; 
and another month had then passed since the 
agitation of the matter of more stringent nat- 
uralization laws had begun in Congress. 
Either one or two months was doubtless a 
sufficient time for sending important public 
information to distant parts of the country. 



ACT OF 1798 89 

Neither period, however, would have nearly 
sufficed to apprise aliens generally, even in 
the near-by states, that an important measure 
seriously affecting their interests was pend- 
ing in Congress. And much more than know- 
ing that mere fact was essential for their tak- 
ing even simple steps to ward off the dangers. 
It is, I think, doubtful whether many aliens 
outside of a few large cities would within the 
given time, as matters then were, have felt 
any particular stimulus from the proposed 
legislation leading them to declare intention 
of citizenship. 

Returning to the argument made at the 
time, Sitgreaves (Pa.) thought that a mere 
matter of expediency was involved in the ques- 
tion at issue, and that the dangers existing 
were too patent to admit of the amendment. 
Claiborne said that his state (Tenn.) had been 
represented in Congress only since the winter 
before, and it was therefore not strange that 
many did not know the law. They had no 
post-road and no newspaper. It would be a 
great injury to deprive them of their right. 
They had fought and bled in the service of 
the United States, and were as much wedded 
to the government as were any people. J. 
Williams (N. Y.) declared that, while aliens 
might hold land "by the laws of several 



9© NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

states," they also were taxed and should be 
represented. The motion of Gallatin pre- 
vailed in the committee of the whole with 52 
votes in its favor. 

In the House Coit (Conn.) opposed favor- 
ing those who were in the United States be- 
fore 1795, and had taken no steps to become 
citizens. His amendment was lost by 49 to 32 
votes. Sitgreaves proposed to amend the 
amendment of Gallatin so as to give one year's 
time in which to act to those in the United 
States before 1795, and to allow to those hav- 
ing given notice by a declaration of intention 
four years from the time of the notice. An 
amendment to change one year to two years 
was lost by a vote of 31 to 39. One year then 
carried with 59 votes for it. Four years car- 
ried by a vote of 47 to 31. 

Bayard (Del.) 24 sought to suspend the 
operation of the bill for a limited time, to 
avoid the danger at that time of too great re- 
strictions in a new law, but failed on a point 
of order. The bill then went to the Senate, 
and the House turned its attention to the 
Alien Enemies' Bill. 25 

The Senate referred the naturalization 
bill 26 to a special committee, 27 and continued 

2i May 22, 1798. 

25 House Journal, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 306, 309. 

28 May 23, 1798. 

27 Bingham (Pa.), Stockton (N. J.), and Tazewell (Va.). 



ACT OF 1798 9i 

the consideration of its own "bill concerning 
aliens/' or the Alien Friends' Bill. Lawrence 
moved to amend this by providing that it 
should not be construed to affect any alien 
who had come to the United States for the 
purpose of becoming a citizen, had made the 
required declaration, and had "renounced his 
allegiance and fidelity" according to the act 

of 1795; or may do so "within days." 

The clause allowing future declaration of in- 
tention was stricken out by a vote of 14 to 10. 
The amendment carried, 20 to 4. Those op- 
posed to it were Goodhue (Mass.), Lloyd 
(Md.), Paine (Vt.), and Read (S. C.). 28 

The naturalization bill was reported with 
amendments, 29 the nature of which is un- 
known. Presumably they were of minor im- 
portance. The Senate amended the bill in ac- 
cordance with the report, and upon its third 
reading Anderson (Tenn.), representing the 
interests of the unsettled West, moved to 
strike out fourteen and insert seven years as 
the required residence term. The vote on 
this proposition was : yeas, 10 ; nays, 1 1 . 30 The 

28 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 567; 
May 29, 1798. 

28 June 8. 

30 Yeas: Anderson (Tenn.), Bloodworth (N. C), Brown (Ky.), 
Foster (R. I.), Marshall (Ky.), Martin (N. C), Mason (Va.), 
Tattnall (Ga.), Tazewell (Va.) ; nays: Bingham (Pa.), Chipman 
(Vt.), Goodhue (Mass.), Hillhouse (Conn.), Latimer (Del.), Law- 
rence (N. Y.), Livermore (N. H.), Paine (Vt.), Read (S. C), 
Stockton (N. J.), Tracy (Conn.). 



92 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

yeas were one each from Rhode Island, New 
York, Tennessee, and Georgia; and two each 
from Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky. 
Vermont and Connecticut each furnished 
two nays, and New Hampshire, Massachu- 
setts, New York. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, and South Carolina, each one. The 
vote of New York was divided. Those ab- 
sent or not voting were the two senators from 
Maryland, and one each from New Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jer- 
sey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. 
The affirmative vote, with the exception of 
the one vote from Rhode Island, was entirely 
from states having extensive frontier areas. 
The negative vote was chiefly from the older 
settled states. 

The bill from the House, and as it was 
finally passed, contained in the first section 
the provision: 

-That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the 
United States, or of any state, unless in the manner pre- 
scribed in the act. 

After the failure of his amendment to re- 
duce the residence requirement to seven 
years, Anderson offered another, apparently 
intended to remove from the bill recognition 
of federal citizenship, and to establish the view, 



ACT OF 1798 93 

so prevalent later in the State Rights' party, 
that only state citizenship had any real ex- 
istence under the Constitution. He moved to 
insert "any of the United States" in place of 
"the United States, or of any state," in sec. 1 
of the bill as above. The vote taken on strik- 
ing out the phrase shows the same persons 
voting as on the seven-year proposition. 
Eight supported the change, and thirteen op- 
posed it. The only changes from the previous 
vote were that Foster, of Rhode Island, and 
Martin, of North Carolina, went over to the 
side of the majority. The bill passed, after 
further unrecorded amendment, 13 to 8. The 
thirteen were the same persons as opposed 
the above amendment, and the eight were the 
supporters of it. Every opposition vote on 
the final passage of the bill was from a state 
naturally desirous of immigration. The oppo- 
sition to France that culminated with the X. 
Y. Z. exposures carried a number of votes for 
the measure, in spite of strong local interest in 
favor of attracting immigration. 31 

Near the end of the year of special privilege 
that the new law offered certain aliens, the 
South Carolina Gazette announced 32 that it 
was "very probable" that there were "many 

31 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 561-77; 
May 2.2 to June 12. 

32 June 13, 1799. 



94 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

persons in this state" who intended to become 
citizens of the United States, and informed 
any such who were in the United States be- 
fore January 29, 1795, that they must apply 
before June 18, 1799 — i. e., within the next 
five days — or they would be on the footing of 
new aliens, and would be required to give five 
years' notice and make proof of fourteen 
years' residence. 

A few months later, 33 a House committee 
reported on the petition of certain aliens of 
Mount Pleasant, N. Y. These represented 
that they came into the United States before 
the passage of the act of 1798, and had omitted 
to make the declaration required to secure 
them admission under the act of 1795. They 
now requested the passage of an act securing 
to them the rights they would have had, had 
they made such declaration. The committee 
saw nothing warranting a deviation from the 
general rule. They believed the law of 1798 
to be fair and just, and fourteen years not too 
long to conciliate the feelings of aliens to the 
manners, laws, and government of their new 
country. They thought that the attachment 
of a man to his native country would not be 
obliterated in five years so as to make it 
prudent to repose the confidence in him that 

33 March 4, 1800. 



ACT OF 1798 95 

the government must place in its own citizens. 
Hence, they held, the prayer of the petitioners 
ought not to be granted. 34 

In the closing months of Adams' adminis- 
tration a resolution presented in the House 
resulted in the appointment 35 of a committee 
to inquire and report, by bill or otherwise, as 
to the expediency of amending the naturaliza- 
tion acts; to admit to the benefit of the act of 
1795 all persons entitled to it before the pas- 
sage of the later act and since resident in the 
United States; or to consider and report on 
the expediency of repealing the act of 1798. 
Another resolution, referred the same day 
to the same committee, directed inquiry as to 
the expediency of admitting aliens in the 
United States before January 29, 1795, and 
since resident therein, to become citizens. 
The first of these contemplated reviving 
the residence requirement of the act of 1795 
for the benefit of a limited number of aliens, 
or of extending the provisions of that act to 
all aliens. The other resolution proposed to 
admit to citizenship upon special terms all 
such aliens as had been in the United States 
the specified time, about six years. A bill 
was reported 36 to extend the privileges of 

34 American State Papers, XX, 208, No. 125. 
85 January 30, 1801. 
36 February 6, 1801. 



96 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

the former act to a limited class of aliens, 
but the session expired with it unconsidered. 
A petition for private naturalization, the first 
observed since 1790, was referred and neg- 
lected also. 37 The Federalist party record 
upon this subject ends here. 

87 House Journal, Sixth Congress, Second Session, 781, 788, 
804. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE ACT OF 1802 

Jefferson's message at the opening of Con- 
gress in December, 1801, contained the follow- 
ing passage : 

I cannot omit recommending a revisal of the laws on 
the subject of naturalization. Considering the ordinary 
chances of human life, a denial of citizenship under a resi- 
dence of fourteen years is a denial to a great proportion of 
those who ask it, and controls a policy pursued from their 
first settlement by many of these states, and still believed of 
consequence to their prosperity; and shall we refuse to the 
unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the 
savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving 
in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on 
this globe? The constitution, indeed, has wisely provided 
that for admission to certain offices of important trust a 
residence shall be required sufficient to develop character 
and design. But might not the general character and 
capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every 
one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life 
and fortunes permanently with us, with restrictions, per- 
haps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our 
flag, an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and 
loss on the genuine citizen and so much danger to the 
nation of being involved in war, that no endeavor should 
be spared to detect and suppress it. 1 

Vigorous and comprehensive attacks were 
made by the Federalist press upon the mes- 

1 House Journal, Seventh Congress, First Session, 1 1. 
97 



98 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

sage ; but generally they are noticeable for 
the lack of any reference to the naturalization 
question. Neither the editorial review of the 
message in the Washington Federalist, 2 nor 
six articles upon it copied from the Anti- 
Democrat, mention it. To infer from these 
a lack of desire to defend the existing law 
seems justifiable. 

However, Hamilton, in a series of eighteen 
articles upon the message, which he signed 
"Lucius Crassus," devoted two to naturaliza- 
tion and a consideration of Jefferson's con- 
sistency in regard to it. 3 He said: 

The next most objectionable feature in the message, is 
the proposal to abolish all restrictions on naturalization, 
arising from a previous residence. 

This, he continued, was at variance with the 
maxims of all commentators on popular gov- 
ernment, and with Jefferson himself. 

The notes on Virginia are in direct contradiction to the 
Message, and furnish us with strong reasons against the 
po'licy now recommended. 

The passage from Jefferson's Notes (writ- 
ten in 1781) quoted by Hamilton is as fol- 
lows : 4 

Here I will beg leave to propose a doubt. The present 
desire of America is to produce rapid population by as 

2 December 16, 1801. 3 Hamilton's Works, VII, 236. 

* Jefferson's Writings, III, 190. 



ACT OF 1802 99 

great importation of foreigners as possible. But is this 
founded in good policy? 5 The advantage proposed is the 
multiplication of numbers. Now let us suppose (for 
example only) that, in this state, we could double our 
numbers in one year by the importation of foreigners; and 
this is a greater accession than the most sanguine advocate 
for emigration has a right to expect. Then I say, beginning 
with a double stock, we shall attain any given degree of 
population only twenty-seven years and three months 

sooner than if we proceeded on our single stock 

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale 
against the advantages expected from a multiplication of 
numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the 
happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much 
as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact 
together. Civil government being the sole object of form- 
ing societies, its administration must be conducted by 
common consent. Every species of government has its 
specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than 
those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of 
the freest principles of the English constitution, with others 
derived from natural right and from natural reason. To 
these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of 
absolute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the 
greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them 
the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in 
their early youth ; or, if able to throw them off it will be in 
exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is 
usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle 
were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. 
These principles, with their language, they will transmit to 
their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will 
share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their 

5 Hamilton omits from this point to "But are there" below. 



ioo NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a hetero- 
geneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to 
experience, during the present contest, for a verification of 
these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are 
they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer 
to wait with patience twenty-seven years and three months 
longer, 6 for the attainment of any degree of population 
desired or expected? May not our government be more 
homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 
twenty millions of Republican Americans thrown all of a 
sudden into France, what would be the condition of that 
kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less 
strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million 
of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a 
similar effect here. 

At this point Hamilton ended his quota- 
tion, stopping just before the most important 
sentence that Jefferson wrote. It reads : 

If they come of themselves they are entitled to all the 
rights of citizenship ; but I doubt the expediency of inviting 
them by extraordinary inducements. 

Jefferson also added that he would not ex- 
tend "these doubts" to the importation of 
useful artificers. 

Spare no expense in obtaining them. They will after 
a while go to the plow and hoe ; but in the meantime they 
will teach us something we do not know. 

Hamilton continued that the impolicy of 
admitting foreigners to the suffrage imme- 
diately was an axiom. The United States had 
already felt the evils of incorporating large 

a Hamilton omits the last six words. 



ACT OF 1802 101 

numbers of foreigners. Classes and antipa- 
thies resulted. In the infancy of the country, 
with a boundless waste to people, "it was 
politic to give a facility to naturalization ; but 
our situation is now changed," and the nat- 
ural growth was sufficiently rapid. He did 
not mean 

to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship 
to strangers, nor even for the very long residence which is 
now a prerequisite to naturalization, and which of itself 
goes far toward a denial of that privilege. The present 
law was merely a temporary measure adopted under pecu- 
liar circumstances, and perhaps demanded a revision. But 
there is a wide difference between closing the door 
altogether and throwing it entirely open, between a post- 
ponement of fourteen years and an immediate admission to 
all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought 
to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and 
acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and 
imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a 
probability, at least, of their feeling a real interest in our 
affairs. A residence of not less than five years ought to be 
required. If the rights of naturalization may be communi- 
cated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not be, 
those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisi- 
tion of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, 
upon receiving proof by certain prescribed solemnities, of 
the intention of the candidates to become citizens, post- 
poning all political privileges to the ultimate term. To 
admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, 
the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended 
in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the 
Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty. 



102 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

In considering the justice of Hamilton's 
criticism upon the position of Jefferson, we 
must first remember that the Notes relate to 
Virginia alone. Then the facts of a new gov- 
ernment, greatly enlarged territory, and the 
lapse of twenty years at the time of the mes- 
sage are to be considered; also the different 
conditions affecting the production of a lit- 
erary work and an important state paper. 
Consider also that in the Notes the subject in 
hand was emigration and increased popula- 
tion, and that Jefferson began with, "I will 
beg leave to propose a doubt," and ended 
with, "I doubt the expediency of inviting them 
by extraordinary inducements." Note care- 
fully the restrictive effect of "expediency," 
"inviting," and "extraordinary inducements." 
Consider that he asserted the desirability of 
getting certain classes of foreign immigrants, 
and that he urged sparing no expense to se- 
cure them. Finally, connect the strong pre- 
sentation of the dangers to be feared from for- 
eigners with the sentence: "If they come 
they are entitled to all the rights of citizen- * 
ship." Surely there is here no semblance of 
"closing the door altogether," nor shadow of 
excuse for anyone to represent that he "would 
have wholly excluded naturalization." 7 

7 Jefferson mentioned naturalization in one other place in the 
Notes on Virginia. In giving a summary of the laws, he said: "A 



ACT OF 1802 103 

When we turn from the Notes on Virginia 
to the message of 1801, it seems that the posi- 
tion of Jefferson in the latter has also been 
misrepresented. Hamilton reads in the mes- 
sage "the proposal to abolish all restrictions 
on naturalization, arising from a previous 
residence." 

Jefferson certainly did not define himself so 
explicitly. He asserted the wisdom of the 
Constitution in requiring for certain offices a 
residence sufficient to develop character and 
design and then questioned whether the "gen- 
eral character and capabilities of a citizen" 
might not "be safely communicated to every 
one manifesting a bona fide purpose of em- 
barking his life and fortunes permanently 
with us." Whether a term of residence should 
be an essential part of the mode of manifest- 
ing this bona fide purpose, and attesting its 
permanent quality, is a question that Jefferson 
left entirely open, unless it can be maintained 
that in adding "with restrictions, perhaps, to 
guard against the case of fraudulent use of 
the flag," he must be understood to imply 
that he would have no restrictions in other 

foreigner of any nation not in open war with us, becomes natur- 
alized by removing to the state to reside, and taking an oath of 
fidelity; and thereupon acquires every right of a native citizen: 
and citizens may divest themselves of that character by declaring 
by solemn deed, or in open court, that they mean to expatriate 
themselves, and no longer to be citizens of this state." 



104 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

cases. It is possible so to understand him, 
but it is, I think, unquestionable that Jefferson 
did not seek to express himself clearly to that 
effect. The natural interpretation of his 
words does not find in them so extreme a 
thought. But if it be held that Jefferson did 
mean to recommend the naturalization of for- 
eigners promptly upon their landing in 
America, I think that at least as good a case 
can be made out, from the evidence of the 
Notes in the sentence, "If they come of them- 
selves they are entitled to all the rights of 
citizenship," that in 1781 he had already 
reached the same opinion. 

Others followed Hamilton in alleging that 
Jefferson was inconsistent in 1801 with the 
views expressed in his Notes on Virginia. A 
series of three articles on the message, signed 
"Recantator," appeared while the act of 1802 
was before Congress. The last of these is 
a diatribe charging Jefferson with dishonest 
change of opinion and with seeking the suf- 
frage of alien fugitives. 8 J. C. Hamilton also, 
in his History of the Republic of the United 
States, 9 tells us that the early opinions of 
Jefferson would have wholly excluded natur- 
alization; and again that Hamilton, replying 
to the message, quoted Jefferson's early opin- 

8 Washington Federalist, May 19, 1802. 9 VII, 148, 529. 



ACT OF 1802 105 

ions against the admission of foreigners to 
citizenship on any terms. 

In connection with the first of these mis- 
representations occurs also a strange use of 
material to save Hamilton from responsibility 
with his party for the Federalist mistakes of 
1798. The son is discussing the Naturaliza- 
tion Act of 1798, and has declared that "Ham- 
ilton's view differed from his party." In 
proof of this he writes the unqualified "He 
said that," and follows it with details of Ham- 
ilton's opinions quoted from the reply to Jef- 
ferson's message as given above. Readers 
are thus compelled to suppose that these 
words represent Hamilton's expressed opin- 
ions or advice at the time of the passage of 
the act of 1798, before the election of 1800 
could have influenced either his thought or 
his utterance of it. Hamilton had said in the 
same article : "The present law was merely a 
temporary measure adopted under peculiar 
circumstances, and perhaps demands re- 
vision." While it is true that temporary con- 
ditions led to the passage of the law referred 
to, there is no evidence that any of its sup- 
porters intended it to be "merely a temporary 
measure." On the contrary, most of them 
probably regarded it as a compromise meas- 
ure that stopped short of what they desired. 



106 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

The paragraph of Jefferson's message 
under consideration was referred to the Com- 
mittee of the Whole House on the State of 
the Union, which reported a resolution ''That 
the laws respecting naturalization ought to be 
revised and amended." 10 The House agreed 
to the resolution, 11 and a bill was soon 
brought in by a special committee appointed 
for the purpose. 12 The most complete state- 
ment of its contents and purposes as originally 
introduced has been found in the Kentucky 
Palladium. A general interest in the measure 
is apparent on the frontier that was lacking 
in the eastern cities. 

The Palladium noted that a bill had been 
reported for revising and amending the laws 
on naturalization, and that it proposed several 
objects. The first of these was to repeal the 
act of 1798, passed when the United States 
were threatened with being involved in Euro- 
pean war. Besides the fourteen-years-resi- 
dence requirement, the alien 

10 December 14, 1801. X1 December 15, 1801. 

12 January 26, 1802; House Journal, Seventh Congress, First 
Session, 17, 18, 70. The record upon this bill in both Journals 
and Annals is very meager. The Kentucky Palladium for January 
8 and 15, 1802, adds some details. Mitchell, in committee of the 
whole on December 14, referred to his having presented two peti- 
tions from aliens, and offered the following: ''Resolved, That the 
laws respecting naturalization ought to be revised." To this an 
amendment by Giles added "or amended." One member sought to 
secure instructions for the committee that they should prepare the 
bill, and another opposed reference to a committee on the ground 
that the bill to be proposed would affect every state in the Union. 
The reference was made by a vote of 29 to 42. 



ACT OF 1802 107 

was also subjected to a variety of forms and penalties which 
have, since the passing of that act, been disregarded both by 
aliens themselves and by the magistrates of places in which 
they resided. 

The second object was to recur to the act of 
1795 which required five years' residence, and 
make that the rule governing admission. 
There was a proviso against admitting alien 
enemies, and against receiving the mere oath 
of any alien to prove the time of his own resi- 
dence in the United States, compelling him to 
establish that point by other testimony. The 
third object was to cause aliens to register 
their names in the office of a clerk of some 
federal or state court, a certificate of this reg- 
istration to be produced later as evidence of 
the time when the alien arrived in this country. 
This provision was to apply to all who arrived 
after June, 1798. A final object was to explain 
some doubts relative to proceedings under the 
naturalization laws, within the state of Penn- 
sylvania. 

There is no report of debate or of the nature 
of the several amendments made to this bill 
in the House. The Annals 13 mention "some 
time spent" upon it. 14 The vote by which it 
passed was 59 to 27. 15 In the Senate a part 

13 March 4, 1802. 

14 House Journal, Seventh Congress, First Session, 123, 127. 

15 Ibid., 129. 



108 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

of the amendments reported by a special com- 
mittee were adopted, and the bill was then 
recommitted. 16 Again the Senate accepted a 
part of the amendments that were made, and 
further amended it. 17 Newspaper reports in- 
dicate that the Senate amendments did not 
alter "the principle of the original bill," and 
that "they are principally confined to the re- 
instatement of several of the provisions of the 
act of 1795. " 18 

The Senate also struck from the bill a 
clause that limited to one year the operation 
of the special proviso for aliens who were in 
the United States before 1795; required of 
them "due proof made to some one of the 

16 Annals of Congress, Seventh Congress, First Session, 198, 
200, 204; March 12, 18, 25. 
1? Ibid., 251 ; April 1, 1802. 

18 Philadelphia Advertiser, April 13 and 14, 1802. Various 
considerations render it probable that the original bill had only 
four sections, and in most respects was equivalent to the first 
three sections of the law. The Senate combined sees. 1 and 2; 
perhaps transferred the part that repealed the original acts to a 
new sec. 5; and probably inserted sec. 4, relating to minor children 
of naturalized persons, to children of citizens born abroad, and to 
persons already proscribed by any state. Some of the considerations 
in support of these conclusions may be mentioned. The House 
recommitted the fourth section of the bill {House Journal, 123) ; 
a Senate amendment to the last line of the original is found in 
the final sec. 3 (Annals of Congress, Seventh Congress, First Ses- 
sion, 252; April 3); the Kentucky Palladium's summary contains 
four parts, arranged in harmony with these views; sec. 4 of the act 
is not referred to in the Palladium's summary of the bill as intro- 
duced, and its provisions, as we expect the Senate amendments 
to be, are taken largely from the act of 1795 (Philadelphia Adver- 
tiser, supra). Finally, the House amended a section proposed to 
be substituted by the Senate for sees. 1 and 2 of the original bill 
(House Journal, Seventh Congress, First Session, 187). 



ACT OF 1802 109 

courts," in place of "declaring on oath or af- 
firmation" that they had fulfilled the other 
residence requirements; and inserted "imme- 
diately preceding his application" to modify 
the state residence required in the same pro- 
viso. It also changed the word "admitted" 
to "naturalized" in the last clause of sec. 3. 
By the first of these amendments it secured, 
for those who had been in the United States 
seven years, the opportunity, not merely 
within a year, as the House had provided, but 
at any future time, to become naturalized 
without a previous declaration of intention. 
The next amendment made this proviso con- 
sistent with the general provision as to proof 
of residence. The third amendment required 
a quality of residence of those having the bene- 
fit of this proviso that was not definitely stipu- 
lated for as to others. The final change substi- 
tuted the most precise technical term for a 
very loose general one. 

The bill passed the Senate as amended, by 
a vote of 18 to 8, and was further amended in 
the House. 19 It became a law on April 14, 
1802, 20 and remains the law in all of its general 
features after the lapse of one hundred years. 
Two months later the Kentucky Palladium 21 

19 House Journal, Seventh Congress, First Session, 177, 187. 

20 Ibid., 194. 21 June 17, 1802. 



no NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

quoted from the National Intelligencer the news 
that the revision had taken place, and the follow- 
ing comment : 

The justice due to a large number of people who emi- 
grated under the faith of existing laws, and the policy of 
opening the wilderness and acquiring the arts and manu- 
factures of Europe required this revision. It is only the 
revival of the Washington system. 

During the winter of 1803 a number of pe- 
titions, chiefly from aliens in Pennsylvania, 
were received by Congress praying for a modi- 
fication of the Naturalization Act. The first 
of these asked amendment as related to aliens 
who came to the United States to reside while 
the act of 1798 was in force. It was objected 
to on the ground that it was extremely dis- 
respectful by reason of some severe com- 
ments on the Adams administration, and that 
the law had been amended in the interest of 
the petitioners at the last session of Congress. 
One speaker urged care lest they "uncitizen- 
ize" themselves by going too far. After dis- 
cussion pro and con, reference was lost by a 
vote of 32 to 49. 22 

The following day another petition was 
read containing an argument for easy naturali- 
zation. Irish aliens had been invited by Con- 

22 House Journal, Seventh Congress, Second Session, 324; An- 
nals of Congress, Seventh Congress, Second Session, 465; February 
7, 1803. 



ACT OF 1802 in 

gress. Two years' residence in Pennsylvania 
and some other states was to give citizenship. 
Encourage aliens and you will prosper. "Neg- 
lect us, we suffer, but you are not served." It 
concluded with a prayer that Congress would 
admit to citizenship those aliens that were shut 
out from it by default of three years' previous 
declaration of intention, and restore the two- 
years'-residence requirement of the first nat- 
uralization law. Again reference was refused 
by the more emphatic vote of 23 to 61. 23 

Soon, however, other petitions of a similar 
nature were referred to a special commit- 
tee, 24 but not without question and explanation 
that the objectionable expressions of the for- 
mer ones were not in these. The committee 
worked rapidly, got leave to report by bill, 
and did so in three days, 25 as follows : Any 
alien being free white, resident in the United 
States between June 14, 1802, and since, may 
be admitted to become a citizen of the United 
States, or any of them, without compliance 
with the first condition of the Naturalization 
Act [i. e., without making declaration of in- 
tention three years before admission]. 

There was vigorous opposition when the bill 

23 Annals of Congress, Seventh Congress, Second Session, 474, 
480; February 8, 1803. 

24 House Journal, Seventh Congress, Second Session, 339, 345; 
April 14 and 16. 

25 April 17. 



H2 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

was put upon its passage. Goddard (Conn.) 
was surprised that this bill was pressed 
— there was so little time left; none were less 
entitled to the time of the House than these 
persons. The language of their petitions was 
at first so indecent that the House had refused 
to consider them. They were returned within 
two days with the same signatures and lan- 
guage, except that the objectionable passage 
had been omitted. Someone had remodeled 
them. Dana (Conn.) also objected to giving 
more attention to these aliens than to citizens. 
Smilie (Pa.) defended them. He quoted the 
objectionable paragraph and asserted its truth. 
In substance, it was that from 1798^0 1801 
aliens attached to liberty were abused in the 
administrative papers; the president was no- 
toriously hostile, and could banish them at pleas- 
ure; an alien resident could have no induce- 
ment to declare his intention to become a citi- 
zen, as he was thus placing himself on a list 
of proscriptions [calling the attention of a hos- 
tile administration to himself]. 

He continued by inquiring what harm there 
could be in admitting aliens after five years 
of residence, even if they had not made a 
declaration of intention at a time when four- 
teen years' residence was required. Duty to 
the aliens and to their own selves required 



ACT OF 1802 113 

their admission. Fears lest foreigners should 
destroy or injure their political system were 
ridiculous. Labor is of the last (i. e., great- 
est) importance in the middle states. The 
measure saves three years of residence to a 
class of aliens, who without it must reside here 
eight years before their naturalization. Davis 
(Ky.) urged the turbulent and factious tem- 
pers of aliens, and verily believed that in less 
than five years they would be obliged to re- 
enact fourteen years' residence. Was it right 
or constitutional to apply four rules to some 
aliens and three to others? Some of the oppo- 
sition feared that perjury would result from 
the measure. Lieb (Pa.) stated that the pe- 
titions showed many persons to be affected. 
Was there any magic in a declaration of in- 
tention fitting aliens for citizenship? It was 
the existing law that made inequality; it re- 
quired five years' residence for some and eight 
years for others, who came after 1798 and be- 
fore 1802. Only four at most of the required 
fourteen years had passed for these, and nine 
were given before it became useful to declare 
intention. An earlier declaration was a risk, 
and exposed the alien to transportation. Both 
the spirit and the letter of the last law were in 
favor of the present bill. 

Three votes were taken in disposing of the 



ii4 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

measure. Postponement was refused by a 
vote of 40 to 42. Griswold moved to recom- 
mit, as it was too late to amend in the House. 
If the measure carried, he wished it to carry 
with it a provision for a declaration of inten- 
tion one month or one year before admission. 
The purpose of a declaration was to let 
people observe the character and behavior of 
the prospective citizen. He wished the select 
committee, also, to investigate the charge of 
forgery in reconstructing certain of the peti- 
tions. Recommitment failed, 38 to 42. The 
bill was then rejected by a vote of 37 to 42. 20 
A petition of Baltimore aliens brought up 
the subject in the House early in the following 
session, 27 and a bill was soon reported. 28 It 
passed the House by a vote of 65 to 38, and 
became a law on March 26, 1804. 29 Section 1 
was the same as the bill of the previous year, 30 
except that the words "or any of them 1 ' were 
omitted after "may be admitted to become 
a citizen of the United States." They had 
been in all the previous acts, except that of 
1790, and their omission here indicates the as- 

20 Annals of Congr-css, Seventh Congress, Seeond Session, 
569-74; February 21, 1803. 

27 House Journal, Eighth Congress, First Session, 518; January 
6, 1804. 

88 Ibid., 545; January 20, 1804. 
20 Ibid., 655, 690. 
80 See p. in. 



ACT OF 1802 115 

cendancy of a new conception of the relations 
between state and federal citizenship. 

Section 2 provided that when any alien who 
had complied with the conditions in sees. 1 
and 2 of the act of 1802 (i. e., had made a 
declaration of intention, had registered the 
date of his arrival, and had received a certifi- 
cate thereof) died before he was actually 
naturalized, his widow and children should be 
considered to be citizens, and should be en- 
titled to all the rights and privileges of citizens 
upon taking the oaths prescribed by law. The 
House and the Senate each made one change 
in the bill as reported. It is probable that one 
of them made the change mentioned in section 
1, and that the other added sec. 2 to the bill. 
The latter section introduced a new principle 
into the legislation on the subject. 

McMaster refers :u to the Federalist oppo- 
sition in 1807 to the naturalization laws, as 
causing trouble ; and to their cry of repeal 
those laws, give up to England her subjects, 
and do not wage war for protection of British 
deserters. It was this opposition that led, in 
1808. to an ettort in Congress to enact that 

all citizens shall be considered such no longer than while 
they actually reside within the United States : and that. 

* x History of the United States, III. --55- 856, See IV. ^Soff.. 
for some instructive passages in regard to the immigration of this 
period. 



n6 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

also, if any citizen shall expatriate himself, he shall, ipso 
facto, be deemed an alien, and ever after be incapable of 
becoming a citizen. 32 

This bill was reported 33 by a committee ap- 
pointed, 34 on the motion of Burwell (Va.), to 
inquire into the expediency of amending the 
act of 1802. It was twice read, and reached 
reference to the committee of the whole a 
month before the close of the session. 

82 Annals of Congress, Tenth Congress, First Session, 1871; 
March 26, 1808. 

83 March 26, 1808. 

34 Early in the following session (November 30, 1808) Burwell 
renewed his motion for a committee, and soon (December 17) re- 
ported a bill in the same form as before. He mentioned a modi- 
fication of it, to which his committee had not agreed, that he in- 
tended to propose in committee of the whole. The bill, however, 
dropped from sight with its reference as before. House Journal, 
Tenth Congress, Second Session, 133, 247, 368, 395; 19 Annals of 
Congress, Tenth Congress, Second Session, 864; December 17, 1808. 



CHAPTER VII 

THE ACT OF 1813 

Within ten days after the declaration of 
war with Great Britain, in 1812, a committee 
was appointed in the House to inquire into the 
expediency of admitting to citizenship such 
British aliens (now alien enemies, and in- 
capable under existing laws) as had emi- 
grated to the United States while they were 
alien friends. 1 The mover of the committee 
urged that the immediate attention of Con- 
gress was required, as the courts were pro- 
hibited from naturalizing persons whose pro- 
bationary period was ended and of whom 
state laws required military service. The gov- 
ernment was pledged to these; they were 
strongly attached to the United States, and 
there could be no danger from admitting 
them. 2 The committee promptly reported a bill 
authorizing the naturalization of such British 
alien enemies. An amendment was added 
limiting to the next six months the time in 
which application for the benefit of the pro- 
posed law, and declaration of intention, could 
be made. An amendment to exclude from its 

1 House Journal, Twelfth Congress, First Session, 401. 

2 Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, First Session, 1561. 

117 



n8 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

privileges all aliens of five years' residence in 
the United States who had not already made 
legal declaration of intention to become citi- 
zens was lost. The bill passed the House, 
without division, the third day after its intro- 
duction. It went through the Senate in three 
days, without amendment, and passed by 
unanimous consent. 3 July 6, 1812, it was sent 
to President Madison. 4 

Just after the opening of the following ses- 
sion, in November, a message from the execu- 
tive informed the houses that this bill had 
been "liable to abuse by aliens having no real 
purpose of effecting a naturalization," and 
that, as it came to him too late to be returned 
for their reconsideration, he had permitted it 
to fail of becoming a law. He recommended 
that "provision be now made in favor of aliens 
entitled to the contemplated benefit, under 
such regulations as will prevent advantage 
being taken of it for improper purposes." 5 

Niles Register, in noting the failure of this 
bill, said: 

It is understood that some amendment to the bill in 
one or other house in the course of its progress rendered it 
objectionable in the view of the president. 6 

3 Op cit., 317. 

* House Journal, Twelfth Congress, First Session, 403, 414, 421. 
6 Ibid., Second Session, 554. 
6 Niles Register, II, 304; July 25, 1812. 



ACT OF 1813 119 

It seems to have had but one amendment, as 
given above; and that one brought the bill 
more into line with the suggestion of the mes- 
sage than it was without it. In the course of 
the debate on a subsequent bill, the ground of 
the president's opposition was explained to be 
that the bill contained no authorization for the 
removal of alien enemies before their naturali- 
zation was completed. 7 Interest in this ex- 
planation is increased when we remember that 
the president who wrote this veto message 
wrote also the Virginia resolutions. 

The committee of the House to which the 
message was referred reported a new bill with- 
in two weeks. 8 It authorized the admission to 
citizenship, in the manner prescribed by the 
naturalization acts, of all persons resident in 
the United States or the territories thereof on 
June 1, 1812, notwithstanding anything grow- 
ing out of the existing state of war, provided 
that no alien enemy was to be admitted unless 
he declared his intention and made the appli- 
cation required within nine months. Nothing 
in the act was to be construed to prevent the 
removal, according to law, of any alien enemy 
before his naturalization was completed. 9 
Besides the addition of this last proviso, the 

7 Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 467. 

8 House Journal, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 554. 

9 Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 153. 



120 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

substantial changes from the former bill were 
two. The date at which residence must have 
been acquired was changed from June 18 (the 
opening of the war) to June i ; the time within 
which declaration of intention could be made 
was changed from six months to nine months. 
A varied experience met the bill in the House. 
The committee of the whole reported it with- 
out amendment. The House amended it by- 
adding as sec. 2 : 

That every naturalized citizen of the United States or 
the territories thereof, shall forfeit such citizenship upon 
his voluntarily removing from and remaining out of the 
United States or the territories thereof, for and during the 
term of two years. 10 

This is probably the origin, or a very early 
prototype, of the similar two-year term in va- 
rious later treaties. Apparently, the radical 
amendment the bill had now undergone de- 
stroyed the interest of its friends in it. A 
month passed by when, on motion of the 
father of the measure, Lacock (Penn.), it was 
recommitted to a committee of the whole fbr 
amendment. The recommendation of that 
body, that the new section providing for expa- 
triation be struck out, carried in the House by 
a vote of yi to 43. 11 Lacock made an effort 

10 Shown by Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, Second 
Session, 153, in connection with House Journal, Twelfth Congress, 
Second Session, 569 and 684. 

11 House Journal, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 684. 



ACT OF 1813 121 

now to amend by extending the naturalization 
of aliens to all those "who have heretofore, 
or may within nine months hereafter, declare 
their intention agreeably to law to become 
citizens of the United States." This amend- 
ment failed by three votes. It would have re- 
moved any question (such as arose with a later 
bill) as to a new declaration of intention being 
required from those who had taken the first 
steps toward citizenship. But much more im- 
portant would have been the permission given 
to naturalize all alien enemies arriving in 
America within the next nine months. 

A reason alleged by Bacon (Mass,), the fol- 
lowing day, for opposing the bill, that it was 
impolitic to encourage the emigration of alien 
enemies during war 12 would seem to be valid 
only on the supposition that it was made at 
an earlier date, while the foregoing amend- 
ment was pending. But his motion to recom- 
mit to the committee of the whole for amend- 
ment, supported by Grundy, who wished to 
amend certain details of the bill, and carried 
by a large majority, leaves little possibility of 
doubt that he spoke at the later date. 

For a third time the committee of the whole 
approved the bill in its original form, and it 
passed the House on February 23 as "an act 

12 Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 1076. 



122 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

supplementary to the existing naturalization 
acts." 13 A day later the Senate special com- 
mittee reported it with amendments. It was 
read the third time, as amended, by unanimous 
vote, and passed on March 3, entirely too late 
for further consideration in the House. 14 Just 
as the bill passed the House, a petition was 
received from certain naturalized citizens, for- 
merly British, who, referring to a proclama- 
tion of the prince regent, declared that they 
were threatened by the English as traitors, if 
they aided the United States. They asked 
that the wisdom of Congress protect them. 15 
Third bill : A special session of Congress 
was held during the summer of 1813. Lacock, 
who had championed the cause of the enemy 
aliens in the House, had been transferred to 
the Senate. On the last day of May he pre- 
sented therein a memorial of certain English 
aliens praying for admission to citizenship, 
notwithstanding the omission of certain forms 
of application. The language of this petition 
would seem to embrace the removal of the 
enemy disability, and also admission without 

13 House Journal, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 689, 702, 
703. 

14 Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 100, 
102, 109, 121; House Journal, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 
736. 

15 Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 98; 
February 23, 18 13. 



ACT OF 1813 123 

a declaration of intention. In response to it, 
a bill was reported within two days, amended 
in committee of the whole in manner un- 
known and passed within a week of the re- 
ceipt of the petition. 16 It authorized the ad- 
mission, according to law, of all alien enemies 
who were resident in the United States at the 
beginning of the war; but limited to nine 
months the time for making the required 
declaration of intention. Nothing contained 
in it was to be construed to prevent "the ap- 
prehension and removal, agreeably to law, of 
any alien enemy, at any time previous to the 
actual naturalization of such alien." 17 

The bill met with no opposition in the 
House committee of the whole, but, when re- 
ported to the House, Burwell (Va.) stated 
that he wished to offer amendments, one of 
them being to confine the privileges of 
naturalized citizens to actual residence with- 
in the United States. 18 Later he waived his 
purpose to amend this bill, declaring that he 
should propose a radical change of the natu- 
ralization laws at the next session. He held 
it to be the duty of Congress to repeal its 

16 Ibid., Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 19-23; May 31 to 
June 7. 

17 House Journal, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 22; or 
Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 147. 

18 Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 147; 
June 9, 1813. 



124 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

naturalization laws in toto, or to dry up the 
sources of collision with foreign powers aris- 
ing out of them; but time was then lacking 
for mature consideration of the subject. He 
must oppose the present bill, unless it was 
amended, as it would give "to the numerous 
class of foreign merchants who have been 
ordered from the seaports, the advantage of 
availing themselves of all the benefits of citi- 
zenship, and the protection and privilege they 
convey, by merely declaring an intention to be- 
come citizens." 19 This objection involves the 
idea that protection would be given by the 
United States even to alien enemies who had 
taken but one step toward citizenship. 20 

Gaston (N. C.) had many objections to the 
bill. He secured a change in its wording to 
make clear that those who had already de- 
clared their intention should be exempt from 
a new declaration. A motion to validate any 
naturalization of alien enemies made since the 
war began was lost by a vote of 57 to 73. 
Further opposition arose to the bill in its exist- 
ing form, and, with an amendment pending to 
confine its privileges to those who had already 
declared their intention to become citizens, 

19(9/. cit., 154; June n. 

20 It can hardly be that the privilege of the American flag in 
commerce is what is referred to. That would involve an idea 
about as unlikely and much more inadequate. 



ACT OF 1813 I2 5 

it was agreed nem. con. to refer it to the 
Committee of Foreign Affairs. 21 It returned 
with three amendments, of which the House 
accepted one, limiting the privileges of the 
bill to aliens who had already declared their 
intention, or of whom no declaration of inten- 
tion was required. 22 King (Mass.) failed in 
an effort, probably in the interest of alien 
sailors, to strike out the limitation to persons 
"resident in the United States or the Terri- 
tories thereof." 23 

Again those who wished to open the way 
for the admission of all resident alien enemies 
rallied their forces, and, by a very close vote, 24 
succeeded in recommitting the measure to a 
favorable select committee. Kennedy (N. C.) 
supported their report at some length. He 
urged that the situation of the alien enemy 
was extremely disagreeable, shut out as he 
was from all mercantile business within forty 
miles of tide water, and harassed by the adver- 
tisements of United States marshals ordering 
him to register. The recent law relative to 
seamen did not restrict their naturalization 

21 Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 154; 
June ii, 1813. 

22 In the debate of the twelfth, Kennedy referred to a clause 
limiting the privilege of naturalization under the act to aliens who 
had declared their intention. This justifies the conclusion given as 
to the nature of the amendment {Annals of Congress, p. 433 ). 

23 House Journal, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 74, 88. 

24 Fifty-seven to fifty-three. 



126 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

until peace came. Those who thought that it 
did might amend this measure to naturalize 
only after five years' residence, and all diffi- 
culty would be removed. The measure would 
strengthen the country for war and relieve 
persons who had, for the most part, been 
banished by oppression, had fled to the only 
asylum open to them, and were now threat- 
ened again. In his section they were general- 
ly Irish. Some persons were contending for 
letting them be naturalized by state govern- 
ments. In that case the United States could 
not claim them as citizens and screen them 
from punishment for treason. Could the gov- 
ernment treat as alien enemies, and deny civil 
rights to, those who joined its armies? Such 
a course would sour the minds of those well 
affected. He had it on good authority that 
the president's opposition to the former bill 
was because it contained no provision for the 
removal of alien enemies previous to their 
naturalization. 25 

The House amended the report of the com- 
mittee, evidently by reinserting the require- 
ment of a declaration of intention before the 
outbreak of the war. 26 Roberts, the chairman 
of the special committee, then sought again 

25 Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 465. 

26 This is shown by Roberts' amendment (House Journal, Thir- 
teenth Congress, First Session, 113). 



ACT OF 1813 I2 7 

to remove this restriction and insert in place 
of it, "if they shall have resided therein [in 
the United States] for the continued term of 
five years immediately preceding their admis- 
sion as citizens in manner aforesaid." Ken- 
nedy had suggested this measure to those who 
opposed the admission of any whose declara- 
tion had not been made before June 18, 1812, 
as a compromise that would be acceptable. 
His side were now driven to urge it as a last 
resort in defense of their contention. The 
Roberts amendment failed, as did also an 
effort to admit of later declaration by those 
who "had intermarried with a citizen of the 
United States." The bill became a law on 
July 30, 1813. 27 It was entitled: "An act sup- 
plementary to the acts heretofore passed on 
the subject of an uniform rule of naturaliza- 
tion." It provided "that persons resident 
within the United States, or the Territories 
thereof," at the outbreak of the war, "who had 
before that day made a declaration according 
to law" of intent to become citizens of the 
United States, or who, by the existing laws, 
were entitled to become citizens without 
making a declaration, might be admitted to 
become citizens thereof, notwithstanding they 
should be alien enemies, at the time and in the 

27 House Journal, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 113, 114, 
130, 131, 135, 141. A Senate amendment was disagreed to. 



i-S NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

manner proscribed by the laws heretofore 
passed on that subject; provided that the act 
was not to be construed to interfere with the 
removal, etc., of any alien enemy before his 
actual naturalization.- 8 

In summing- up the foregoing history, we 
note that the first bill simply removed the 
enemy disability from those in the United 
States at the beginning of the war (June iS, 
1812) ; but it was amended to limit declara- 
tions to six months after its passage. This bill 
received a pocket veto. The second bill re- 
moved the alien-enemy disability from all who 
were in the United States on June i, iSu. but 
required a declaration of intention within nine 
months. It was amended by the senate too 
late in the session for further action in the 
House. The third bill originated in the Sen- 
ate. It removed the alien-enemy disability 
from those who were in the United States on 
June iS, iSu. but any required declaration of 
intention was to be made within nine months. 
The House, after a lively struggle within it- 
self, succeeded in limiting the application of 
the measure to those whose declaration of in- 
tention was made before the outbreak of the 
war, or who needed to make no declaration. 

3S Statutes at Large, III, 53. 



CHAPTER VIII 

AN ACT CONCERNING EVIDENCE 

During the discussion of the bill for the 
naturalization of alien enemies, Dana (Conn.) 
made repeated attempts in the Senate to se- 
cure consideration of a bill concerning evi- 
dence in cases of naturalization. He intro- 
duced it on July 19, 181 3, and, failing to gain 
a hearing for it so late in the session, secured 
its postponement to the first week in Decem- 
ber. 1 In the following session, however, he 
introduced a new bill. 2 Three weeks later he 
secured its reference to a committee of which 
he was chairman, and reported it unchanged, 
but could get for it no other consideration 
than a second postponement over the recess. 3 
Early in the first session of the new Congress 
in 181 5 he renewed his efforts, with better 
success. After amendment in both House 
and Senate, his bill became a law March 2.2, 
1816. 4 The title was: "An act relative to evi- 
dence in cases of naturalization." 

1 Annals of Congress. Thirteenth Congress. First Session. 59, 
6-z, ?q; July 19. 21, 30, 1813. 

* December 33. 

s Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, Second Session. 
563. 57L 759. 775: December 23, 1S13; January 10. April 18, 1814. 

* Senate Journal, Fourteenth Congress, First Session. 50, 55, 
88, P3, 77. S3; House Journal. Fourteenth Congress, First Session, 
164. 305. 3", 336, 411, 418, 496. 

129 



i ;o NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 



It provided that the certificate of report 
aiul registry required In - the act of [802, and 
also a certificate of the declaration of inten- 
tion, should he exhibited by every alien who 
should have arrived in the United States after 
June iS. iSi-\ and that each should be recited 
at full length in the record of the court ad- 
mitting such alien to citizenship. Otherwise 
he should not be deemed to have complied 
with the conditions required tor becoming a 
citi/cn of the United States. Any pretended 
admission of such citizen, after the promulga- 
tion of the act, without such recital of each 
certificate at full length, should be of no 
validity. Any person admitted without a cer- 
tificate must prove to the satisfaction oi the 
COUrt that he was a resident m the United 
States before April 14. iSoj. and had resided 
therein continuously since. The proof o\ his 
residence for the five years immediately pre 
ceding his admission must he by the oath or 
affirmation of citizens of the United States. 
who must be named in the record as witness- 
es. The fact of continuous residence must be 
stated in the record, also all places oi residence 
for live years. A record oi naturalization 
without these particulars should not entitle a 
person to be considered a citizen* 8 

• % Statutes .!.' / iinv. III. .-^S. 



A.CT CONCERNING KVIDKNCIC 131 

[n January, iSi<>, Wilson (N.J.) submitted 
for the consideration of the Senate a resolu- 
tion for a committee to inquire into the ex- 
pediency of revising and digesting the several 
acts of Congress o\\ the subject i>\ naturaliza- 
tion, or of compiling" and publishing' the said 
acts, and distributing' the same to the officers 
of courts authorized to issue certificates of 
naturalization. The outcome of this was a 
resolution" that the secretary of state have 
printed four thousand copies of the laws then 
in force on the subject oi naturalization, and 
send two copies of each to the clerk of each 
federal or state court authorized to naturalize, 
to each collector of customs, and to each mar- 
shal oi a United States judicial district. Re- 
maining copies should go to the executive de- 
partment and the Library of Congress. 7 

During a debate in the Mouse in committee 
oi the whole, in 1S10, on a bill to incorporate 
subscribers to the national bank, Randolph 
(Va.) moved to add the word "native" in the 
clause that limited the choice oi directors io 
citizens oi the United States, thus making it 
read "native citizens." This motion was 
agreed to (ayes. 08) without debate. When 

• Appi oved Mm H u\ 1S10. 

: >V •: .:.'. fourteenth Congress, First Session. 77, 79, 

,;i, .(.-.-. .|S; HoHSt Jonmol, Fourteenth Congress, First Session, 
c\u>; AntuUs of Congress, Fourteenth Congress, First Session, 1018, 



132 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

the clause providing for the appointment of 
directors for branch banks was reached, a 
similar motion was made to insert "native" 
in a similar provision. Calhoun then objected 
to the amendment. He said that it was the 
first attempt that had been made to discrimi- 
nate between native and naturalized citizens. 
The constitution recognized no such distinc- 
tion, except in eligibility to the highest office, 
and he could see no reason for introducing at 
that time so odious and unprecedented a dis- 
tinction. Randolph replied to Calhoun at 
considerable length, and, in the words of Niles 
Register, "he inveighed with much acrimony 
against the whole class of naturalized citi- 
zens." He declared that the United States 
owed to its naturalization laws the spirit of 
faction by which it had been torn for twenty 
years, and along with it the war just over. 
Protecting foreign seamen had also grown out 
of it. How long the country must endure this 
foreign yoke in its most odious and disgusting 
form he could not tell ! He would much rather 
be ruled by the British Parliament than by 
British subjects in America. They must teach 
the people of Europe that all they must hope 
to receive in America was protection. They 
must have no share in the government. 
Wright replied warmly to Randolph, and this 



ACT CONCERNING EVIDENCE 133 

motion was lost without division. When the 
bill came before the House, Calhoun secured 
the rejection of the first amendment also, by 
a vote of 44 to 6y, although Randolph again 
advocated it in a short speech. 8 

8 Annals of Congress, Fourteenth Congress, First Session, 1152, 
1 1 S3, 1200; Niles Register, X, 31, 47; March 6 and 11, 18 16. 



CHAPTER IX 
EXPATRIATION 

In giving a summary of the laws of Virginia 
in 1781, Jefferson wrote 1 that "citizens may 
divest themselves of that character by declar- 
ing, by solemn deed, or in open court, that 
they mean to expatriate themselves, and no 
longer to be citizens of this state." He added 
to this summary of the laws the statement that 
the first assembly after Virginia became a state 
appointed three men to revise the code. 
Among the most remarkable alterations they 
proposed was "to define with precision the 
rules whereby aliens should become citizens, 
and citizens make themselves aliens." 2 

In the summer of 1817, 3 a few months be- 
fore the exhaustive debate on the subject of 
expatriation occurred in Congress, Jefferson 
wrote from Monticello to Dr. John Manners : 

My opinion on the right of expatriation has been so 
long ago as the year 1776, consigned to record in the act of 
the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right 
expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The 
evidence of this natural right like that of the right to life, 
liberty, and the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happi- 
ness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations 

1 Jefferson, Writings, III, 240; in his Notes on Virginia. 

2 Ibid., 242, 243. 3 June 12. 

134 



EXPATRIATION 135 

of the reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. 
We do not claim these under the charters of Kings or 
legislators, but under the King of Kings. If he has made 
it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, 
he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode ; 
and we may safely call upon the whole body of English 
jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for 
each individual, the geographical line which she forbids 
him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly does not 
exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I 
might safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civil- 
ized or savage, which has ever denied this natural right. 
I doubt if there is another which refuses it exercise. 4 

Jefferson had, while president, occasion to 
make practical application of his views upon 
this subject in a case in which he maintained 
the binding force of the doctrine against a 
man who wished to free himself from the 
consequences of his own act in having former- 
ly availed himself of it. Jefferson wrote to his 
secretary of the treasury (Gallatin) : 5 

The Attorney-General being absent, we must decide for 
ourselves the question raised by Colonel Newton's letter, 
whether Mr. Cooper can own a registered vessel? or, in 
other words, whether he is a citizen of the United States. 

I hold the right of expatiiation to be inherent in every 
man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being right- 
fully taken from him even by the united will of every other 
person in the nation. If the laws have provided no par- 
ticular mode by which the right of expatriation may be 
exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and 

4 Jefferson, Writings, X, 87. 5 June 26, 1806. 



136 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

unequivocal act or declaration. The laws of Virginia have 
provided a mode; Mr. Cooper is said to have exercised his 
right solemnly and exactly according to that mode, and to 
have departed from the Commonwealth; whereupon the 
law declares that "he shall thenceforth be deemed no 
citizen." Returning afterwards he returns an alien, and 
must proceed to make himself a citizen if he desires it, as 
every other alien does. At present he can hold no lands, 
receive nor transmit any inheritance, nor enjoy any other 
right peculiar to a citizen. 

The general government has nothing to do with this 
question. Congress may by the Constitution " establish an 
uniform rule of naturalization," that is, by what rule an 
alien may become a citizen. But they cannot take from a 
citizen his natural right of divesting himself of the char- 
acter of a citizen by expatriation. 6 

From many points of view this is a most 
interesting letter. It unhesitatingly accepted 
the view that a state was competent to legis- 
late in the matter of expatriation, involving, 
as Jefferson held that it must, the loss of fed- 
eral citizenship. The Virginia law being in 
force and applying to this person, the appeal 
to it was, from Jefferson's point of view, ab- 
solutely necessary, and apparently none the 
less acceptable. Perhaps he did not decide the 
question as to whether Congress could also in- 
dicate a valid mode of expatriation. At any 
rate, his language seems to necessitate the 
view that it could not establish an exclusive 
mode, although he took the position that the 

6 Jefferson, Writings, VIII, 454. 



EXPATRIATION 137 

legal mode or modes, when there were such, 
were exclusive of all others. "The general 
government has nothing to do with this ques- 
tion/' is indefinite as to whether it applies to 
the particular case Jefferson had in hand, or 
to the general question of expatriation. His 
last sentence might seem to have been framed 
to avoid expressing a decision upon this point. 
The citizen character lost by expatriation was 
totally lost, and the person became an alien. 
That character was not resumable at will, nor 
by consent of the government, but only 
through the full process of naturalization. He 
had no question, such as Madison once ex- 
pressed, 7 as to the right of an expatriated 
American to become naturalized under the 
laws that applied to foreigners. 

In the summer of 1797 considerable discus- 
sion on the subject of expatriation occurred 
in the House committee of the whole during 
the consideration of a bill to prevent citizens 
of the United States from entering foreign 
service. We are informed merely that Rut- 
ledge (S. C), W. Smith (S. C), Dayton 
(N. J.), Brooks (N. Y.), Otis (Mass.), and 
Kittera (Pa.) spoke in favor of marking out 
a way for expatriation. On the other hand, 

7 See p. 54. An opinion of Hamilton on the subject of expatriation 
has been quoted, in another connection, on page 3. 



138 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Coit (Conn.) was probably successful in his 
motion to strike out a section declaring that 
for the due execution of a portion of the act 
it was expedient to define and ascertain the 
mode in which a citizen might dissolve the 
ties of citizenship. 8 

Great interest and much feeling on the sub- 
ject of expatriation were aroused by the de- 
cision 9 in the case of Isaac Williams, who was 
tried 10 in the Circuit Court of the District of 
Connecticut for accepting a French naval 
commission, contrary to the law laid down in 
Art. XXI of the Jay Treaty, that subjects or 
citizens of the one country should not accept 
commissions from a foreign state at war with 
the other. Williams claimed that he was ap- 
pointed to a place in the French navy in 1792, 
and was naturalized in France the same au- 
tumn. He had only visited in the United 
States, less than six months, in 1796. The 
court held that "the common law of this 
country remains the same as it was before the 
revolution," that all the members of a civil 
community were bound to each other by a 
compact, and that one of the parties to the 
compact could not dissolve it by his own act. 

8 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, First Session, 348; 
June 20 and 21, 1797. 

9 Rendered by Chief Justice Ellsworth, of the United States 
Supreme Court. 

10 1799- 



EXPATRIATION 139 

There had been no consent or default on the 
part of the community. Nor did he admit the 
implied consent that had been argued from its 
policy, condition, and acts. Their country had 
no inhabitants to spare. They naturalized, 
but did not inquire as to the relation still sus- 
tained to the other country. "But this im- 
plies no consent of the government that our 
own citizens should expatriate themselves." 
The fault and folly of embarrassing himself 
are his own. 11 

Various articles upon the subject appeared. 
One in the South Carolina Gazette, 12, signed 
"South Carolina Planter/' was written by 
Charles Pinckney, and was called forth by 
another case, that of Mackay and Nicks vs. 
the Polacre Ship "Adams," condemned by the 
British. The claimant was held to be a British 
subject because he was not admitted a citizen 
of the United States until March, 1796, 13 and 
hence could not be considered, with respect to 
England, a citizen of the United States, to 
permit of his trading with the British enemy. 
On the right to change nationality Pinckney 
quoted Cicero as saying that "the way is open 
from every state to ours and from ours to 

11 Wharton's State Trials, 652; quoted in part in Snow's Cases 
on International Law, 215. 

12 October 10, 1799. 

18 He had settled in the United States in 1792; the war began 
in February, 1793. 



140 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

every state." He cited Grotius, and quoted 
Vattel as saying that a man may leave his 
country "except when he cannot abandon it 
without doing it a remarkable prejudice." In 
case of naval war or distant expeditions no 
danger was threatened at home, and England 
had been at war more than half of the last 
century. The law of England and of Russia 
infringed upon the right of naturalization. The 
United States must protect the commerce of 
its new subjects, or their grant of citizenship 
was a public deception. 

The Williams decision was printed in the 
South Carolina Gazette for November 28, 
1799. A week later a reply, entitled "On Ex- 
patriation," signed "A Federalist," appeared in 
the same paper. This writer urged that the 
common law, on which the decision was based, 
had been greatly modified by the Revolution. 
He admitted that the government was based 
on a compact, and that one could not dissolve 
it. But the only compact with American citi- 
zens was the Constitution. It contained no 
express principle against a citizen of the 
United States joining another state. Posterity 
were not bound in their personal liberty by the 
Constitution when they left the country. An 
article in the same paper a year later 14 blamed 

14 October 16, 1800. 



EXPATRIATION 141 

the Federalists for supporting the Williams 
decision. 

A series of articles in the Aurora, 15 signed 
"T. C. of Northumberland," discussed the sub- 
ject of expatriation. New light had come to 
English law on this subject from the revolu- 
tionary period. In earlier European history 
the people gradually came to be considered 
the subjects or property of their rulers, and 
from this fact allegiance was considered to be 
perpetual. Yet writers on general law had 
always claimed exceptions. These had grad- 
ually been extended. This progress of opinion 
caused a presumption that the right of expa- 
triation was to be more universally ac- 
knowledged. The latest writers were fifty 
years old and from despotic countries. As 
general arguments in favor of expatriation he 
noted exceptions allowed by the writers, as 
follows: (1) the case of a government plainly 
tyrannical; (2) religious duties, etc., being 
prohibited; (3) extreme economic reasons, 
such as the usual means of subsistence failing; 
(4) failure of duty by the state (also to the 
state); (5) the fundamental laws being vio- 
lated. He suggested also to be added to these : 
(1) desire of bettering fortune; (2) demands 
of health, relations, etc. Thus he found that 

15 January 22, 24, 25, 1800. 



142 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

exceptions applied to nearly every case and 
destroyed the law. Moreover, the extreme of 
the law would show that no allegiance was 
due to any of the existing governments. Only 
the first government could be lawful. Again, 
the law directly opposed every revolution. It 
was unnecessary to any good government. 
And again, the being able and willing was im- 
plied in the making of all valid contracts. 
These illustrations indicate the trend of the 
thought of the time. 

The failure of Burwell's attempt in 1808 to 
enact "that all citizens shall be considered 
such no longer than while they actually reside 
within the United States, and also that if any 
citizen shall expatriate himself, he shall ipso 
facto, be deemed an alien, and, ever after, be 
incapable of becoming a citizen," has been 
mentioned. 16 

An expatriation bill before Congress in 1817 
led to an exhaustive debate upon the subject. 
The bill "by which the right of citizenship may 
be relinquished" 17 was reported 18 by a com- 
mittee 19 appointed 20 to inquire into the ex- 

16 See p. 116. 

17 Probably the language of its title. 

18 December 22, 1817. 

19 Robertson (La.), Mason (Mass.), Poindexter (Miss.), Ross 
(Pa.), and Floyd (Va.). 

20 December 15, 181 7. 



EXPATRIATION 143 

pediency of providing by law for the exercise 
of the right of expatriation. 21 

In making the motion for the committee, 
Robertson said that he had offered a similar 
resolution some years before, during the war. 
The war question had made a decision neces- 
sary. England had treated many prisoners as 
traitors, and the United States could not con- 
sistently retaliate, for she had not recognized 
in her own citizens the right that she demand- 
ed that Great Britain should concede to hers. 
In the Williams case a man had been fined and 
imprisoned by the United States courts, on 
the ground that he could not divest himself of 
United States citizenship. It was proper for 
the legislature to decide so important a ques- 
tion. Under a treaty with Spain, 22 a citizen 
of the United States holding a commission 
from any government at war with Spain while 
we are at peace with her, is considered as a 
pirate. They were not neutral as between 
Spain and her colonies so long as a citizen of 
the United States in fighting for the colonies 
was a pirate, and in fighting against them was 
not. He wished to see American citizens at 
perfect liberty to become citizens elsewhere on 

21 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 50, 73. 

23 Art. XIV of the treaty of 1795 is referred to. No citizen 
of either nation is to take commission or letter of marque from the 
enemy of the other. 



144 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

any terms the other nation might prescribe. 
He favored the principle involved, and the 
existing circumstances required it. His reso- 
lution was adopted without opposition. 23 

The bill reported contained two sections. 
The first section provided 

That whensoever any citizen of the United States shall, by 
a declaration in writing, made and executed in the district 
court of the United States, within the state where he 
resides, in open court to be by said court entered of record, 
declare that he relinquishes the character of a citizen, and 
shall depart out of the United States, such person shall, 
from the time of his departure, be considered as having 
exercised his right of expatriation, and shall thenceforth 
be considered no citizen. 24 

The second section enacted 
that such person shall be held as an alien forever after, and 
shall not resume the rights of citizenship without going 
through the same process of naturalization as other citi- 
zens. 25 

When the bill first came up in committee 
of the whole/ 6 Lowndes (S. C.) remarked that 
it dealt with "a subject of too much import- 
ance to be acted on by so thin a house," and 
it was postponed. Robertson (Ky) opened 
the long debate. 27 The same proposition years 
ago had met with opposition both expected 

23 Annals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 448. 

24 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 284. 

25 Annals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 495. 
The quotation is taken from a summary of the bill. 

26 December 24, 1817. 27 December 26, 1817. 



EXPATRIATION 145 

and unexpected. It had been considered, as 
most principles not borrowed from the com- 
mon law (to which he alluded in a very sar- 
castic way), as fraught with great mischief. 
It interfered with negotiations, and en- 
couraged desertion, piracy, and every sin in 
the Decalogue. But he was now redeeming 
his pledge to bring it up again. It was not 
borrowed from England, and it might prove 
beneficial to the patriots of South America, 
and odious to the friends of Ferdinand. It 
might rescue citizens from the crime of piracy 
attributed to them by treaty. Yet he should 
press the principle. 

He considered expatriation to be an ac- 
knowledged natural right, and demanded that 
opponents show proof of indelible allegiance. 
Man had natural rights, governments had 
none. The friends of liberty were not inno- 
vators. The right of the government to per- 
petual allegiance did not exist here — where 
was it in the Constitution? His principle, 
liberty, was in the Constitution. It was in- 
alienable, and was a necessary consequence of 
naturalization. He denounced the absurdity 
of their right to naturalize and the right of 
another government to the allegiance of the 
person naturalized. He had seen some in- 
genious quibbling in favor of that nonsense. 



146 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Perhaps the right of expatriation had never 
been denied in ancient or modern days except 
by English, Chinese, and, it might be, Hottentot 
governments. Thor and Woden were be- 
lieved to be the authors of the principle of in- 
delible allegiance — the idea had originated in 
the dark ages. Expatriation had been prac- 
ticed by Jews, Greeks (Lycurgus), and Ro- 
mans. He quoted as Cicero's this language: 
O glorious right by the Divine favor obtained for us by 
our ancestors in the commencement of the Roman name; 
by which no man can be the citizen of more than one 
country; by which no man can be compelled to leave it 
against his will, nor remain in it against his inclination ! 
This is the firmest foundation of our liberty, that every 
man should have an absolute power to retain or abandon 
his right at his election. 

France in 1793 had made the loss of citizen- 
ship follow from naturalization in a foreign 
country or the acceptance of office from other 
than a popular government. Since the right 
of expatriation had been denied in America, 28 
and the enjoyment of it denied when the right 
was admitted, 29 it was necessary for Congress 
to secure them by law. The law proposed was 
in substance a copy of the Virginia act. It did 
not presume to give the right, but pointed out 
the manner of exercising it. 

Anderson (Ky.) had no doubt of the exist- 

28 Case of I. Williams. 29 3 Dallas, 133. 



EXPATRIATION 147 

ence of the right; probably it would not be 
denied or doubted. But he would examine 
the question of constitutional power of pre- 
scribing rules for its exercise before that of 
the policy of so doing. Such power did not 
exist. It could not be fairly inferred, nor was 
it necessary or convenient for the exercise of 
other powers. The grant of the power to 
naturalize did not imply its correlative, any 
more than the power to borrow money im- 
plied that to lend money, or import duty power 
implied export duty power. 

They must also distinguish between ac- 
knowledging a right and granting power to 
prescribe the manner of enjoying the right. 
The proposed Thirteenth Amendment, exclud- 
ing any citizen from office under a foreign 
power, with the penalty that he "shall cease 
to be a citizen of the United States," had been 
sanctioned by twelve states. That Congress 
deemed there was a necessity for that amend- 
ment was a recognition of the fact that they 
could not declare the acts that should be 
equivalent to renunciation of citizenship. Yet 
that was what the bill in effect did. Rights 
that the Constitution created might be con- 
trolled in their exercise by law, but this right 
was not created by it. If this power existed in 
any legislative body, it was in the state legis- 



148 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

latures. Some of them had already exercised 
it ; denying it to them would lead to a conflict 
with Virginia. 

This power of declaring what should dis- 
franchise a citizen of a state was too great a 
one to concede to the general government. 
It was a question whether the unrestrained 
enjoyment of the right was not better and 
more fully secured by denying to anybody the 
power to legislate regarding it. Legislation 
to secure rights was often unnecessary, and 
often dangerous. Their perfect enjoyment de- 
pended upon the entire absence of legislative 
control. Power could be claimed that would 
enable Congress to require a mode of expa- 
triation so inconvenient as to amount to an 
entire denial of the right. Foreign legislators 
might even require forms and notice of inten- 
tion. They were then recognizing the validity 
of British statutes that held the emigrant to 
be bound by his foreign allegiance. No coun- 
tenance should be given to the idea that their 
naturalized citizens had not every privilege 
and safety. Emigration was rapid among 
the states and mere departure forfeited the 
character of citizenship. No state had deemed 
a law to be necessary to define the act of for- 
feiture. 

They must rest simply upon the character 



EXPATRIATION i49 

of the government to keep their citizens. He 
would never raise legal fences against immi- 
gration, nor have any artificial barriers to keep 
men in; yet he thought the bill before them 
was both unnecessary and unconstitutional. 

Johnson (Ky.) declared that the Declara- 
tion of Independence recognized the right of 
expatriation. Denial of it was not modern, but 
originated in the days of feudal tenures and 
oath of fealty, perpetual fealty leading to per- 
petual allegiance. Not a nation in Europe re- 
fused to let its citizens or subjects become citi- 
zens and subjects of another nation. The 
right was as sacred and inalienable as any 
right. But what became of the power to 
naturalize when the right of expatriation was 
denied? Judicial decisions against the right 
made legislation to point out the mode of its 
exercise indispensable. 

Pindall (Va.) had understood the friends of 
the bill as viewing it only as providing *a 
record of a legal expatriation, but their com- 
plaints against the courts, etc., proved that this 
was not so. Was it intended to expatriate 
from the general government only and not 
from the states? Or from either one? Or 
both? Congress, he declared, had no control 
over state allegiance, and state allegiance se- 
cured to a person general privileges. There 



IS© NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

were no considerations of policy or of ex- 
pediency to recommend the bill. It would be 
a shelter for the traitor and the pirate, and its 
passage would involve the commission of 
fraud against their treaties, several of which 
contained the article that was in the Spanish 
treaty. No one would ever avail himself of the 
provisions of the bill without motives of idle- 
ness or criminality. He had never heard of any 
country that granted naturalization only after 
an expatriation according to law. If it were 
otherwise, citizens might have an excuse for 
the use of that bill. He was willing to grant 
the right of expatriation, but not that of fight- 
ing against one's country. Something was 
still owed to the former citizenship. There 
was no hint in the Constitution of an oath of 
abjuration. As to the difficulties growing 
out of double allegiance, they might well leave 
the individual to the result of his own en- 
tangling, and explain anomalies by reference 
to the abnormal state of war and the force it 
necessitated. The awkwardness of the con- 
ception was due to forsaking the old view of 
expatriation as involving a prejudice (dis- 
grace) rather than a right. Virginia, the only 
state adopting expatriation as a policy, did so 
at the close of the Revolutionary war, and the 
fact was an evidence of her magnanimity. 



EXPATRIATION 151 

Little harm had resulted from her action, and 
yet her statute was better regarded as a mu- 
seum ornament than as a legislative precedent. 
The bill before them would do much evil. 

Lowndes (S. C.) moved to strike out sec. 
1 of the bill. 30 It would bring no benefits and 
was unconstitutional. The existence of the 
right was admitted, and was sufficiently recog- 
nized by Congress. So delicate a power as 
that of regulating it should be expressly grant- 
ed. It would release from all liabilities and 
also release from all privileges. The view 
that the Constitution should control the rights 
of citizens was upheld by the proposed amend- 
ment already referred to. As there was no 
law to regulate the exercise of rebellion, so 
no legislation was necessary to secure the 
right of expatriation, even if the Constitution 
had given the needed power. What did the 
treaty provision mean more than the loss of 
protection? Robertson (La.) replied at 
length to Lowndes. Henry Clay took the 
same view as Robertson as to the Spanish 
treaty and referred to a piracy trial at Boston 
as illustrating its effect. 

An all-day discussion 31 ensued on the mo- 
tion to strike out the first section. McLane 

80 This motion was, of course, intended to kill the bill. 

81 February 28, 18 18. 



152 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

(Del.) declared it to be unnecessary to affirm 
or deny the right to expatriate. He would 
seek to show that the measure was unconstitu- 
tional and would be inefficient. Assuming the 
right, it was a civil one whose exercise must 
be consistent with mutual obligations. He 
dwelt on the states'-rights argument against 
the constitutionality of the measure. Even if 
released by the general government, a person 
continued to be a citizen of his state. An in- 
definite supremacy over the personal rights 
and effects of individuals was implied in the 
measure. It was inexpedient for many 
reasons, novel and unreasonable. It con- 
cerned a delicate and extreme right shaking 
the foundations of civil government. The 
exercise of the right presupposed a fault in 
the country, and was always to be deplored. 
They should not make that exercise easy, 
weakening the love of country. A better 
policy was to encourage immigration. The 
right claimed exonerated man from every 
sort of civil obligation, and legalized treason, 
plunder, and spoil. Their duties to their own 
dignity and to the world forbade that. The 
effects of the law in the case of a crisis at home 
might be serious. Many would evade the 
danger by means of it. 

Johnson replied that McLane's arguments 



EXPATRIATION i53 

rested on an old feudal doctrine unknown in 
England till the time of William I. No Vir- 
ginian would abandon his country in danger. 
Citizens of the United States did possess the 
right in question in most ample, unlimited, 
and unlimitable degree. They had derived it 
from heaven. The decision in the Williams 
case was an act of tyranny and oppression, for 
which the judge ought to have been im- 
peached. England's conduct in making two 
years' service in the navy constitute a person a 
citizen asserted the right. To presume to 
naturalize, and at the same time to deny the 
right of expatriation, ought to subject a gov- 
ernment to ridicule and scorn. Nevertheless, 
he believed that the bill was unconstitu- 
tional. 

Cobb (Ga.) said that the object of the bill 
was not to change any known law, but rather 
to declare that the principle of perpetual al- 
legiance had no force in the United States. 
The constitutional right to point out the man- 
ner of exercising it was clearly incidental to 
the power of establishing a uniform rule of 
naturalization, and necessarily resulted from it. 
The powers were correlative, and the one 
could not be conceived without the other. In 
the case of naturalization, the law only pre- 
scribed the rule for the act of the individual. 



154 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

It was also so in expatriation, for the bill im- 
posed no restriction on the right. They need 
not be anxious about the fate of the citizen 
who became an outlaw by his own act. He 
could not conceive of any effect of the meas- 
ure on state sovereignty. After renouncing 
the citizenship of all the states, one could not 
claim to be a citizen of any one of them. 
Prince Eugene, Marshal Saxe, and General 
Patkul had all fought against the country of 
their birth. Had no difficulties arisen, there 
had been no necessity for legislating upon this 
subject. 

A decision to strike out sec. i was reached 
by a small majority of the committee of the 
whole. The House concurred in this action. 
A sharp contest then ensued to save the bill, 
Johnson and Robertson claiming that it was 
yet capable of amendment. Others opposed 
this effort as utterly unparliamentary, and ad- 
journment was finally accomplished with a 
motion by Johnson pending, to lay the bill on 
the table. Later 32 Johnson withdrew his mo- 
tion, and proposed as a substitute for the re- 
maining section of the bill a new measure, as 
follows : 

That whereas sundry persons who had been citizens of 
the United States of America, and who had exercised the 

s * March 2, 181 8. 



EXPATRIATION 155 

right of dissolving the connection which bound them to the 
United States in the character of citizens, by voluntarily 
and regularly becoming citizens or subjects of other gov- 
ernments, have been held bound to answer in the character 
of citizens, in the courts of the United States, for offences 
alleged to have been committed subsequently to the exer- 
cise of this right ; and for which citizens only would be 
amenable, in the said courts. And whereas, in the Declara- 
tion of Independence, of the thirteen United States of 
America, the following truths are held to be self-evident, 
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable rights ; that among 
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There- 
fore be it enacted and it is hereby expressly enacted and 
declared that all men do possess the right to seek their 
happiness in any climate, and under any form of govern- 
ment they may elect ; and that, consequently, the right to 
dissolve the connexion which binds the individual to the 
government of the United States, in the character of citi- 
zen, and to form a similar connexion with any other gov- 
ernment, is equally unalienable, and founded on truth 
equally self-evident. 

Williams (N. C.) declared it to be beyond 
the constitutional power of the House to pass 
the measure, and that every honest man in the 
country would disdain to take advantage of 
it. Should they then legislate for the vicious? 
No man in the House was a stronger advocate 
of the right of expatriation than he was, but 
they could not regulate it without circum- 
scribing it. It was a right reserved to the 
people. They were proposing to legislate fel- 
low-citizens into aliens. He touched a very 



156 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

fundamental question when he said that his op- 
ponents held that the right of expatriation at- 
tached to the individual upon his leaving his 
native country, while those with him held that 
it attached upon his becoming the citizen or 
subject of another country. The difference was 
as to a point of time. All persons must be 
subject to the laws of some society. The 
United States could not make a person a sub- 
ject of Great Britain, nor Great Britain make 
one a subject of the United States. If an 
American became a subject of Britain, it was 
by British law ; and this right to become a Brit- 
ish subject the United States acknowledged. 
Abbott (Ga.) favored the amendment as a 
mere declaratory expression of Congress. It 
might have some weight with the courts. 
Johnson also declared that the question before 
them then was a mere declaratory provision, 
the object being to exclude a wrong inference 
from the last vote. It prescribed no rule and 
no act. No construction of it as legislating 
a person out of his rights was possible. After 
other unreported speeches, a motion to post- 
pone indefinitely both bill and amendment 
failed : yeas, J$ ; nays, 88. 33 A motion to sub- 
stitute the word "declared" for "enacted" in 
the enacting clause was lost. 34 

33 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 289. 

34 Annals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 1093. 
Vote, 67 to 76. 



EXPATRIATION 157 

Again an amendment was offered in an ef j 
fort to save a part of the contention of the sup- 
porters of the bill, and provide a measure that 
a majority of the House would accept. Rob- 
ertson moved to strike out the second section 
and insert the following: 

That in all prosecutions which may hereafter be insti- 
tuted against any person for having engaged in military, or 
naval service, for or against any foreign power, when with- 
out the jurisdiction of the United States, who, before the 
commission of the fact with which he may stand charged, 
shall have been a citizen of the United States, but shall 
have exercised his right of expatriation, by becoming the 
citizen or subject of any foreign state or community by 
adoption, it shall be lawful for such person to give such 
fact of expatriation in evidence, upon the general issue, 
and if upon the trial of such person so charged as aforesaid, 
he shall prove such fact to the satisfaction of the jury, he 
shall be discharged from such prosecution. 35 

As a result of this amendment, action on the 
bill was deferred to give time for its considera- 
tion. When the bill was next before the 
House, 36 Forsythe moved to insert between 
"by" and "becoming" in the phrase "by be- 
coming the citizen or subject of any foreign 
state," the words "recording in the office of 
the clerk of some one of the district courts of 
the United States, a declaration that such is 
his intention twelve months prior to." 

35 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 291. 
3G March 4, 1817. 



IS 8 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Robertson's amendment had proposed the 
test of foreign citizenship to determine expa- 
triation. He had thus occupied the ground of 
Williams (N. C), only that he sought to add 
to it the sanction of a law with a limited ap- 
plication. Forsythe's amendment involved a 
long step back toward the measure first pro- 
posed, and was certain to revive a string of 
constitutional objections. It was lost, appar- 
ently without division. A motion followed to 
strike out "for or," and thus limit the appli- 
cation of the measure to the case of service 
"against any foreign power." Thus a right 
to fight against one's native country would 
have been refused recognition, and empha- 
sis given to fighting against a foreign power. 
The motion was supported by Terry and 
Coulson, and opposed by Edwards, Rob- 
ertson, and Lowndes. It failed to pass by a 
large majority. "For or against any foreign 
power" remained, but a motion in the same 
direction as the last one, avoiding some of the 
inferences that it would have involved, passed. 
The phrase "and not in hostility against the 
said states" was inserted after the words 
"United States," by a vote of 65 to 59. 

Several other amendments were then agreed 
to, the result of which was to eliminate all direct 
reference to expatriation. The clause "shall 



EXPATRIATION 159 

have exercised his right of expatriation, by be- 
coming the citizen or subject of any foreign 
state or community by adoption," was changed 
to read "shall have bona fide and voluntarily 
become the citizen or subject of any foreign 
state, while within its jurisdiction." This re- 
sult was reached step by step. "Or com- 
munity" and "by adoption" were dropped out 
separately, and "bona fide and voluntarily," 
and "while within its jurisdiction," were sep- 
arately added. In the original amendment, 
"give such fact of expatriation" was changed 
to "give the fact that he has been naturalized 
in some foreign state." 

After being thus amended, the amendment 
was substituted for sec. 2 (all that remained of 
the original bill), by a vote of 93 to 61. 37 

Sec. 2, which thus disappeared, had made 
the renaturalization of persons expatriated 
the condition of their restoration to citizen- 
ship. Williams (N. C.) offered at this point 
a new section declaring that no person who 
availed himself of the privileges of the bill and 
became expatriated should ever after be per- 
mitted to be naturalized as a citizen of the 
United States. His motion was rejected. 

Robertson opposed the bill as it had been 
amended, mainly the clause that denied a 

87 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 298; An- 
nals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 1 104-6. 



160 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

right to fight for the country of adoption 
against the native country. His opposition 
led to the reconsideration and defeat of the 
amendment by which the phrase "and not in 
hostility against the said states" had been in- 
serted. The final action taken at the end of 
this long course of debate and maneuvering 
was to reject the bill by a vote of 64 to 75. 38 
No other serious attempt to define the right of 
expatriation occurred for fifty years. 

Niles Register 39 quoted the National Intel- 
ligencer in reference to what the latter called 
"the animated debate" on the expatriation 
bill. It said that the sense of the House ap- 
peared to be 

against legislating on the question of expatriation, on the 
ground, that to prescribe the mode of exercising a funda- 
mental right is to assume the power of limiting it, which 
power, it is contended, does not belong to Congress. 

The question was one surrounded with diffi- 
culties, but the able debate would have shed a 
light that might lead to a 

definitive rule on a point regarding which it appears, that 
the decision of Congress and the opinion of the courts of 
the United States are at variance. 

A few later references to the subject may be 
mentioned in closing this chapter. Editorial 

88 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 300; An- 
nals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 1107. 

39 XIV, 27; February 27, 1818. 



EXPATRIATION 161 

articles appeared at different times in Niles 
Register on the subject of expatriation. In 
one the editor wrote : "Without expatriation 
there cannot be naturalization." 40 In another 
the "perpetual allegiance doctrine" of "praters 
of royalty" was attacked, and proofs were of- 
fered that even Russia was naturalizing. 41 A 
similar and more forcible article was based 
upon the report in London papers of the nat- 
uralization of George Leopold Coburg by Par- 
liament "in the space of six minutes." Per- 
petual allegiance was asserted to be "the most 
abominable doctrine that ever was held forth." 
For anti-slavery people to hold it "was too im- 
pudent to be borne with patience." 42 An ar- 
ticle entitled "Who Are Citizens?" held that 
Americans who had served Mexico in war 
were expatriated and should not vote in the 
United States. Either they were not citizens 
or they were pirates ; and yet a law was needed 
to provide regularly for expatriation. 43 

John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary in 
1824 that Calhoun doubted the right of ex- 
patriation, declared that he had always been 
against it in feeling, and had never committed 
himself upon it during the War of 1812. 

40 Niles Register, V, 237; 18 13. 

"Ibid., X, 167; 1816. * 2 Ibid., X, 170; 1816. 

* 3 Ibid., XXXV, 162; November 8, 1828. 



162 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Adams agreed with him in sentiment, but 
thought that they had foreclosed that argu- 
ment against themselves by the oath renoun- 
cing foreign allegiance, which they required 
from foreigners as the condition of naturaliza- 
tion. A few days later the subject came up 
again between them, and Calhoun was em- 
phatically of the opinion that native-born citi- 
zens of the United States had no such right, 
except Virginians. They had it by virtue of 
a law of their state. 44 

The limitation of this opinion to native-born 
citizens involves a peculiar distinction. The in- 
ference from it is that the United States, by 
requiring renunciation of former allegiance 
from foreigners, had conferred upon them a 
right (not shared by native-born citizens) to 
claim the principle of expatriation against the 
government, if they should wish to do so. 
Probably the suggestion given by Adams 
helped Calhoun to reach this conclusion. The 
suggestion as to Virginians is a striking illus- 
tration of the controlling character of the 
states'-rights idea in the mind of Calhoun at 
that early period. The complete denial of any 
real federal citizenship, or at least of any such 
citizenship without the domain of ordinary 
state control, is fundamental to it. 

44 J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, VI, 381, 385; June 10 and 13, 1824. 



EXPATRIATION 163 

The United States Senate in 1839 45 referred 
and ordered printed a resolution of the Mich- 
igan General Assembly urging the adoption 
of measures to insure that foreign powers 
recognize the rights of naturalized citizens. 
In substance, it was as follows : Whereas the 
constitution of Michigan is pre-eminently char- 
acterized by its spirit of liberality to the for- 
eign emigrant, 46 and it is just, right, and proper 
that no envious distinctions should exist in 
the United States between adopted and native 
citizens, and the free right of expatriation is 
yet unrecognized in treaties with foreign 
nations, subjecting, in case of war, many adopted 
citizens to the peril of being deemed and treated 
as traitors ; Resolved : That our senators are in- 
structed and our representative is requested 
to use their efforts for the adoption of such 
measures as will insure the recognition, by 
foreign powers, of the absolute citizenship of 
all foreigners naturalized by the existing laws 
of the United States. This resolution, by its 
reference to treaties with foreign powers on 
the subject of expatriation, forecasted clearly 
the ultimate solution of the question. 

45 (341) Senate Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Ses- 
sion, No. 262 (February 25, 1839) ; (337) Senate Journal, Twenty- 
fifth Congress, Third Session, 270; and (353) ibid., Twenty-sixth 
Congress, First Session, 84. 

46 Every "white male inhabitant" of legal age who was "a 
resident of the State'' at the time of the adoption of the first 
Michigan constitution in 1835 was given the suffrage (Poore, 
Charters and Constitutions, I, 984). 



1 64 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

An accompanying memorial 47 of natural- 
ized citizens of Michigan prayed for measures 
to secure the recognition of their rights as 
citizens of the United States. They had sev- 
ered former relations, transferred their alle- 
giance, and were attached by strongest ties 
and by solemn oath to the United States gov- 
ernment. By requiring them to bear arms 
it virtually guaranteed to them the full and 
equal rights of natives. Yet British jurists 
and courts insisted on the doctrine of perpet- 
ual allegiance, which was at. war with their 
equal rights. The enlightenment and liberal 
policy of the British cabinet at that time 48 
justified belief in their favorable consideration 
of the measures desired. A few weeks before 
the resolution of the Michigan Legislature 
was received, the Senate had referred the pe- 
tition of a naturalized Irishman, who had es- 
caped from Canada after being sentenced for 
treason for aiding in the Canadian rebellion. 
He asked that the rights of naturalized citi- 
zens of the United States might be ascertained 
and defined. England's laws were character- 
izing one-fourth of the population of the United 
States as her perpetual subjects. The United 

47 (341) Senate Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Ses- 
sion, No. 263. 

48 This was the second Melbourne ministry. Palmerston, John 
Russell, and T. B. Macaulay were in the leading offices. 



EXPATRIATION 165 

States should settle forever their status in time 
of peace, for in case of war with England 
they could enlist only subject to treason pen- 
alties. 49 

A petition of Sherlock S. Gregory, Renssel- 
aer County, New York, was presented in the 
House in 1837 by John Quincy Adams. The 
author prayed to be considered an alien, or 
stranger in the land, so long as slavery existed 
and the wrongs of the Indians were unre- 
quited or unrepented of. 50 

In January, 1858, a resolution was agreed 
to in the House directing the Committee on 
Judiciary to inquire if any, and what, legisla- 
tion by Congress might be proper to define 
what acts should, or should not, work expa- 
triation or severance of allegiance by citizens 
of the United States; 

and also whether provision by law ought to be made for 
reinvesting with citizenship such persons, born in the 
United States, as may have assumed allegiance or citizen- 
ship to any foreign government. 1 

Two years later 52 a similar resolution received 
the same reference, and with it the further 
query whether provision by law ought not to 

49 (340) Senate Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Ses- 
sion, No. 165. 

50 (310) House Journal, Twenty-fifth Congress, First Session, 
53; September 14, 1837. 

51 (940) Ibid., Thirty-fifth Congress, First Session, 199. 

52 February 16, i860. 



1 66 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

be made to vindicate the exemption of nat- 
uralized citizens of the United States from the 
claims of other governments of a right to en- 
force against such citizens the obligations of 
a prior and different allegiance. 53 Later the 
Judiciary Committee, at its own request, 
was discharged from the consideration of 
this last subject in the resolution, and it was 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Af- 
fairs. 54 A bill introduced by I. N. Morris, 

to provide for expatriation, etc., and to restrain citizens of 
the United States from entering into the military or naval 
service of foreign States, etc., and for other purposes, 

was before the House Judiciary Committee in 
i860; and was ordered printed, together with 
certain notes on the subject, in March of that 
year. A few days later, on motion of its chair- 
man, the committee was discharged from further 
consideration of this bill. 55 

53 (1041) House Journal, Thirty-sixth Congress, First Session, 
314. 

54 (1042) ibid., 994. 

55 (1041) ibid., 216, 311, 423, 519. 



CHAPTER X 

THE ACT OF 1824 

After the War of 1812, and with the com- 
ing of peace to Europe, immigration to the 
United States increased very rapidly. It was 
generally welcomed until 1838. Nearly all of 
the agitation on the subject of naturalization 
had for its object the removal of restrictions 
upon aliens. The provision of the laws that 
required a previous declaration of intention 
was the one most vigorously attacked. The 
opposition to it was successful in changing 
the law in several respects during the decade 
from 1820 to 1830. The general principle 
that there should be a preliminary testing 
period under a declaration of intention with- 
stood all attacks upon it, but the period re- 
quired was reduced from three to two years. 
A special modification of the law was made in 
favor of aliens who came to the United States 
as minors, and hence were incapable of taking 
the steps preliminary to citizenship during the 
early years of their residence. It was thought 
that persons who cast their lot with the United 
States in youth could more safely be trusted 
to make good citizens than those who came 

167 



1 68 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

later. Their admission did not require the 
same safeguards. Another change was in the 
interest of persons whose long residence in 
the United States might compensate for the 
lack of the required declaration. The history 
of these measures is now to be considered. 
The first two of the changes mentioned above 
were made by the act of 1824, and the third 
by that of 1828. 

Early in 1822, on motion of Tucker (S. C.)> 
the House Judiciary Committee considered 
the matter of allowing aliens who had resided 
in the United States one year before the be- 
ginning of the War of 1812, and continuously 
since, to become citizens without complying 
with the requirement of a declaration of in- 
tention three years before their application. 
The report on the subject was as follows : 

The condition is, in the opinion of the committee, a 
very reasonable one, and one with which it is easy to com- 
ply where the intention really exists. To dispense with it is 
to commit a breach in the established system, and to make 
residence without declared intention to become a citizen, 
sufficient to entitle a person to become a citizen. This does 
not seem to the committee to be necessary or expedient, and 
they therefore offer the following resolution : "Resolved, 
That the committee be discharged from the further con- 
sideration of the subject." 

The report and the subject were both effect- 
ually disposed of for that session by reference 



ACT OF 1824 169 

to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union. 1 The next session the House 
ordered the report to be reprinted. 2 

Preliminary to the passage of the act of 
1824 there was consideration of a request for 
a private naturalization act, the object of 
which was to avoid the requirement of resi- 
dence after a declaration of intention. Rep- 
resentative Cobb (Ga.) presented the petition 
of Peter L. Jackson, representing that he was 
a native of England, and came to the United 
States while a minor in 1802. He had not been 
naturalized, but had grown to manhood in the 
country, had married a native American 
woman, raised a family of children, and had 
repeatedly performed military duty in the last 
war with England. Since the war he had re- 
peatedly been appointed to office by the ex- 
ecutive and the people of Georgia, and had 
ever considered himself to be a citizen of the 
United States. Recently, however, he had 
been ejected from a civil office to which he 
had been elected, as the result of a judicial 
decision that he was not a citizen of the United 
States. He prayed that a special act might be 
passed admitting him forthwith to the rights 

1 (62) House Journal, Seventeenth Congress, First Session, 
268, 349; (70) House Reports of Committees, Seventeenth Congress, 
First Session, No. 68. 

2 (86) House Reports of Committees, Seventeenth Congress, 
Second Session, No. 47. 



i?o NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

of a citizen. The House Judiciary Committee, 
to whom this petition was referred, reported 
briefly : "Resolved, That the prayer of the 
petitioner ought not to be granted." The 
House concurred in the report. 3 Probably no 
favor would have been shown to any propo- 
sition to naturalize a single individual. The 
same session of Congress that rejected this 
petition, did, however, let the bars down for 
the class of persons to which this petitioner 
belonged. 

The aliens of Paterson, N. J., at a meet- 
ing held October 21, 1823, perhaps inau- 
gurated the movement leading to the changes 
that were made in 1824. They addressed 
"their fellow emigrants throughout the union," 
and called on all brother-aliens to co-operate 
with them. They said : 

We, conceiving that the alien laws are detrimental to 
the United States, and injurious to us, deem it to be our 
duty to make an appeal to Congress to obtain a revision of 
tHem. 

They were unalterably convinced that their 
full participation in the republican immunities 
was essentially interwoven with the prosperity 
of the commonwealth. The interest of the 
citizen and the republican immigrant were in 
union of sentiment. They hoped that discus- 

3 (92) House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 86, 



ACTOF1824 I7 1 

sion of the subject of intention would make 
clear that the probationary laws were oppo- 
site in their nature to the liberal and mild in- 
stitutions of the United States, which had at- 
tracted them from transatlantic despotism. 
Thousands of them, unacquainted with the 
nature of the existing" alien law, had neglected 
to comply with its provisions. They had 
lacked knowledge of the proper mode of pro- 
cedure, and distance from the proper authori- 
ties had been an almost insuperable obstacle 
in their way. They called earnestly for the 
attention of their brother-aliens to consider 
their best interests, and submitted to them 
the propriety of petitioning Congress to facili- 
tate the right of citizenship. They urged the 
aliens in each state to solicit the aid of their 
members of Congress. They appealed to citi- 
zens also for assistance to obtain their reason- 
able request. It would remove the prejudices 
generated by national feeling, and enable the 
firm supporters of the government to distin- 
guish friends from foes. Finally, they resolved 
to raise a subscription to further their views, 
and solicited editors generally to insert their 
appeal. 4 

Petitions from various parts of the country 
were soon before Congress. New Jersey and 

* Niles Register, XXV, 150. 



172 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

New York City were represented, and citizens 
of New York supported the request of the 
aliens in a separate petition. 5 Sundry aliens 
of Louisiana prayed that the laws upon the 
subject of naturalization be amended to the 
end that greater facilities might be afforded 
to foreigners intending to become citizens. 
Other Louisiana aliens prayed that a special 
law might be passed for their naturalization, 
for reasons set forth in their petition. 6 A 
memorial of certain inhabitants of Savannah, 
Ga., represented that they were natives of 
foreign countries, who had reported, upon 
their arrival in America, to the clerks of courts 
of the United States and signed a declaration 
of intention to become citizens of the United 
States. They had also taken the oaths, and 
ever since, until lately, had supposed them- 
selves to be citizens of the United States. A 
recent decision of the United States District 
Court for Georgia had held that their naturali- 
zations were illegal, and that they were aliens 
in consequence of their not having reported 
themselves and signed the declaration in open 
court. They prayed that one act might be 
passed to legalize the acts by which it was 
supposed that they became citizens. 7 

5 Annals of Congress, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 1428; 
January 19, February 9, 1824. 

6 House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 238, 288. 

7 Annals of Congress, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 
1 6 19; February 23, 1824. 



ACT OF 1824 173 

The House referred the Louisiana petitions 
to a select committee, 8 and a little later trans- 
ferred to it a number of petitions that had 
gone to the Judiciary Committee. 9 Among 
the subjects transferred to the special com- 
mittee was a resolution of inquiry as to 
whether any changes were necessary in the 
existing naturalization laws, 

and also, into the expediency of furnishing copies of those 
laws to the courts of the several states authorized to 
naturalize aliens, so as to secure to persons desirous of 
naturalization the benefit thereof. 10 

As a rule, reference to a select committee 
meant consignment to the hands of friends. 
It was the regular method of saving a meas- 
ure from a hostile standing committee, or from 
a committee whose attitude toward it might 
be uncertain. A bill was reported in part on 
March 8. 11 Apparently the committee in- 
tended to deal with the variety of questions 
involved in the various petitions before it, but 
for some reason, probably because the Senate 
was making progress with a measure before 
it, the House carried its own measures no 
farther. 

8 February 16, and March 3. 

9 (92) House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 238, 
288; Annals of Congress, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 1627; 
February 24, 1824. 

:0 (92) House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 46. 

11 (92) ibid., 298. 



174 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

The Senate had started from a petition of 
Indiana aliens, praying for a modification of 
the laws. The first bill reported by its Judi- 
ciary Committee was recommitted. It was re- 
ported back without amendment and laid on 
the table, and a new bill that accompanied it 
was pushed rapidly to its passage, after under- 
going one amendment, on the motion of 
Holmes (Me.), limiting its provisions to free 
white persons. A motion by Taylor (Va.) to 
strike out all after the first section, and insert 
two new sections, was lost. Nothing can be 
conjectured as to the nature and purpose of 
this amendment. 12 

There remained only six days of the ses- 
sion. After three days the House Judiciary 
Committee reported the Senate bill without 
amendment. The House passed it the next 
day at an evening session, and the President 
signed it the same night. 13 

Meanwhile the House Judiciary Committee 
had received instructions to inquire into the 
expediency "of fixing, by law, the fees proper 
to be allowed for the official duties performed 
in relation to the naturalization of aliens," 14 

12 (88) Senate Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 
136, 151, 196, 290, 298, 449, 455; Annals of Congress, Eighteenth 
Congress, First Session, May 21, 1824. 

13 (92) House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 
568, 569, 577, 593; (88) Senate Journal, Eighteenth Congress, 
First Session, 499. 

14 March 3, 1824. 



ACTOF1824 i7S 

and the expediency "of prohibiting, by law, 
the employment of any person, except a citi- 
zen of the United States, in any of the Depart- 
ments of the Government." 15 

The act of 1824 was entitled: "An act in 
further addition to 'An act to establish an 
uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal 
the acts heretofore passed.' ' Sec. 1 provided 
that any alien, being free white and under 
twenty-one, who should have resided in the 
United States three years, and continued to 
reside therein to the time of making his appli- 
cation to become a citizen, might, after be- 
coming twenty-one, and after he had resided 
in the United States five years, including three 
years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of 
the United States without having made the 
required declaration three years before his ad- 
mission. The required declaration was to be 
made at the time of his admission, and also 
the further declaration on oath, and proof to 
the satisfaction of the court, that for the prev- 
ious three years it had been his bona fide in- 
tention to become a citizen of the United 
States. In all other respects the former laws 
were to be complied with. 

Sec. 2 declared that no certificates of nat- 
uralization previously obtained from any court 

15 March 8, 1824; (92) House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, 
First Session, 289, 299. 



176 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

of record should be deemed invalid in conse- 
quence of omission to comply with the re- 
quirements of sec. 1 of the act of 1816. Sec. 3 
referred to any declarations of intention made 
bona fide before the clerks of proper courts, 
and made them as valid as though they had 
been made before the courts themselves. The 
final section provided that a declaration of in- 
tention to become a citizen made according 
to law by any free white alien, two years be- 
fore his admission, should be a sufficient com- 
pliance with the requirement of the law. 16 

Aliens still urged further modifications of 
the laws for naturalization. Van Buren pre- 
sented a petition to this effect in 1825, and 
another in 1826. 17 In 1826, on the motion of 
Weems (Md.), the House Committee on 
Judiciary was instructed to consider the ex- 
pediency of amending the naturalization laws 
so that when any person applied for citizen- 
ship and proved, by two witnesses, five years' 
previous residence in the United States, with 
the places of the same, he should be deemed 
a citizen and be entitled to a certificate of nat- 
uralization, although he had omitted, from 
ignorance or improper information, or from 
being a minor, to have entered his name as a 

16 Statutes at Large, IV, 69. 

17 Niles Register, XXVII, 412; (124) Senate Journal, Nine- 
teenth Congress, First Session, 103. 



ACTOF1824 i77 

candidate for naturalization. The committee 
was to inquire also as to other alterations that 
might be necessary. Nothing came of this mo- 
tion, and it was renewed the following session 
with as little result. 18 

John Quincy Adams, then president, wrote 
in his diary, July 3, 1827: 

Mr. Rush called, and read me a letter from himself to 
C. J. Ingersoll upon the subject of naturalizing foreigners. 
He is averse to all laws restrictive of naturalization, and 
would confer the rights of a native citizen to every for- 
eigner from the day of his setting foot upon our soil. With 
this opinion I do not exactly concur. 19 

A year later 20 the above-mentioned com- 
mittee received similar instructions as to "re- 
vising and reducing into one, the several acts 
of Congress establishing rules of naturaliza- 
tion;" and, also, as to admitting aliens who 
were in the United States before 1812 on the 
same terms as those who arrived before 1802 
were admitted (i. e., without a previous dec- 
laration of intention). For the third time 
Weems now secured the reference of a reso- 
lution for inquiry as to amending the naturali- 
zation laws. 21 His former resolutions had con- 
templated the admission of aliens, although 

18 (130) House Journal, Nineteenth Congress, First Session, 
347; (147) House Journal, Nineteenth Congress, Second Session, 
87. 

10 Memoirs, VII, 301. 

20 December 11, 1827. 21 December 20, 1827. 



178 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

they had omitted to make declaration of inten- 
tion. The instructions mentioned had now 
provided for the consideration of a part of that 
subject. Weems' motion directed the inquiry 
into the expediency "of so harmonizing the 
several conflicting laws" on the subject of nat- 
uralization "that persons heretofore or here- 
after applying to become citizens of the United 
States," upon making the required proofs of 
five years' previous residence, should, two years 
thereafter, be deemed citizens of the United 
States, and, upon taking the oath of allegiance 
and paying the legal costs, should be entitled to 
receive certificates of naturalization. 22 This 
seems to involve giving the rights of citizen- 
ship without the requirement of an oath of 
allegiance, and without the expense involved 
in procuring a certificate. Perhaps it was 
thought that the oath need not be required, 
nor would a certificate be necessary while the 
new citizen remained in the United States. 
If, however, he wished the certificate for any 
purpose, let him take the oath of allegiance 
and pay for the certificate. The oath of alle- 
giance would thus become merely a special 
pledge of allegiance already due. 

A little later, 23 Buchanan reported from the 
Judiciary Committee a bill to amend the nat- 

22 (168) House Journal, Twentieth Congress, First Session, 76. 

23 January 30, 1828. 



ACT OF 1824 179 

uralization acts. In a statement to the House 
concerning the matter, he said that an alien 
must prove five years' residence in the United 
States by disinterested testimony, and must 
exhibit a certificate that he had declared his 
intention two years before he made applica- 
tion to become a citizen. Neither of those 
provisions was to be interfered with. A cer- 
tificate of registry before a court was also re- 
quired as the only legal evidence of the time 
of arrival in the United States. An alien who 
had lived in the United States ten years must 
reside therein five years longer, if he had neg- 
lected to register his arrival. Such neglect 
was common, indeed almost universal. The 
law was either unknown by them or was neg- 
lected. Some courts carried out the require- 
ment of the law, while others did not do so. 
In 1824 Congress had made certificates of nat- 
uralization good without their reciting the 
fact of registry. The committee thought that 
it would simplify the law to dispense with the 
registry. Sec. 2 was to provide for another 
class of cases. Aliens who had arrived since 
the passage of the act of 1802 must show a 
certificate of declaration of intention made two 
years before their application for admission. 
The committee thought that this might be 
dispensed with, if they showed continuous 



180 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

residence in the United States from before 
June 18, 1812. This would require proof of 
constant residence for nearly sixteen years, 
and accorded strictly with former precedents. 
Similar provisions had been inserted in the 
law in 1802 and in 1804, but none since then 
for twenty-four years. In thus representing 
the matter, Buchanan ignored the fact that 
the chief object of the former provisions was 
to mitigate special hardships arising from 
changes made in the laws. The bill passed 
both houses without any amendment, 24 and 
became a law May 24, 1828. 25 

In 1835 the House had before it a memorial 
of sundry citizens of New York state praying 
that the naturalization law be so amended 
that thereafter no declaration of intention 
should be required, but that aliens should be 
fully entitled to all the privileges of citizen- 
ship, if they proved two years' residence in 
the United States. The Judiciary Committee, 
to which this was referred, was soon there- 
after discharged from further consideration of 
it, and the petition was laid on the table. 26 

24 In the House a paper containing amendments that he in- 
tended to propose to the bill was submitted by Verplank (N. Y.) 
and referred to the committee of the whole in charge of the bill. 
This was on February 15. 

26 (168) House Journal, Twentieth Congress, First Session, 
233, 662, 670, 677, 875; (162) Senate Journal, Twentieth Con- 
gress, First Session, 352, 353, 427, 484; Register of Debates, 
Twentieth Congress, First Session, 2555. 

26 (270) House Journal, Twenty-third Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 307, 358. 



ACTOF1824 i8i 

In the early thirties the House Judiciary 
Committee was three times instructed to in- 
quire into the expediency of putting into a 
single act all of the naturalization provisions 
then in force. Twice these instructions in- 
cluded also the question of revising the laws. 
A bill was reported in February, 1832, making 
further provision for the naturalization of 
aliens. 27 Nothing came of any of these meas- 
ures. 

Several measures giving or seeking to give 
additional civil rights to aliens may be noticed 
here. One of them was passed in 1832, as 
the result of an inquiry relative to amending 
the patent law "so as to place aliens who have 
applied to become citizens on an equal foot- 
ing with citizens, or aliens who have resided 
two years in the United States." 28 Taylor, who 
reported the bill, said that the Patent Act of 
1790 gave aliens the same privileges as citi- 
zens; that of 1793 had limited the privileges 
to citizens; that of 1800 had extended them 
to aliens two years in the United States, who 
made oath that their invention had not been 
made anywhere before. At least seventeen 

27 (205) loc. cit., Twenty-first Congress, Second Session, 60, 171; 
(215) Ibid., Twenty-second Congress, First Session, 57, 317; (232) 

Ibid., Twenty-second Congress, Second Session, 48. 

28 (205) ibid., Twenty-first Congress, Second Session, 258; 
(215) ibid., Twenty-second Congress, First Session, 158, 177, 1145, 
1 148, 1 187. 



182 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

acts had been passed since, dispensing with 
the two years' residence, and requiring only 
actual residence at the time of the application 
for a patent. The bill in hand was on the prin- 
ciple of those seventeen acts. It required 
residence in the United States, declaration of 
intention to become a citizen, and the oath 
of the act of 1800. 29 Besides the points men- 
tioned by Taylor, the act provided that rights 
granted under it should lapse, if the invention 
were not in use within one year and continu- 
ously thereafter, and also in case the inventor 
failed to become a citizen at the earliest legal 
period. 30 In 1837 there was a proposal to 
amend the laws in relation to imprisonment 
for debt so as to place alien plaintiffs on the 
same footing as citizens as to legal remedies. 31 
In 1840 the question of granting letters tes- 
tamentary and administrative to aliens in the 
District of Columbia was referred to the 
House Judiciary Committee. 32 The New York 
Legislature in 1845 passed an act to allow 
John Horsley Palmer, president of the Bank 
of England, to hold real estate. 33 He was 

29 12 Register of Debates, Twenty-first Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 1500. 

30 Statutes at Large, IV, 577. 

81 (300) House Journal, Twenty-fourth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 320. 

32 (362) ibid., Twenty-sixth Congress, First Session, 966. 

33 Niles Register, LXVIII, 179. 



ACT OF 1824 183 

said to have been very favorable to invest- 
ments in America, but of course he had no in- 
tention of becoming even an alien resident. 
Whether he could by the law of a western 
state have gained the right to purchase fed- 
eral land therein, would be an interesting 
question. 



CHAPTER XI 
THE BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 

There are no reliable statistics of immi- 
gration before 1820. The arrivals during 
Washington's administration were chiefly 
English and French. Transportation rates 
were high, and were kept up by legislation 
limiting the number of passengers to two per 
ton of the ship's capacity. The immigrant 
was necessarily a person of some means, and 
opposition to him was from a political, not an 
economic, point of view. The actual influence 
of the French Revolution upon immigration 
was very great, and its anticipated influence 
was much greater. With the advent of the 
Napoleonic period most of the immigration 
ceased. It began again in greater numbers, and 
from other countries also, when peace re- 
turned to Europe. We have seen that the in- 
clination in America generally was for some 
time thereafter in favor of it. Every succeed- 
ing period of economic depression, however, 
produced a violent reaction against it. 

The immigration during each of the two 
decades ending in 1820 and 1830 was about 
1 per cent, of the total population at the end 
184 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 185 

of the decade. During the next decade it 
reached 3^ per cent, of the population in 
1840. This percentage was a little more than 
doubled during the next decade, and for suc- 
ceeding periods it has been 8, 6, 6, and 8 per 
cent. The population, the base of these per- 
centages, increased quite uniformly by one- 
third during all except the later periods. 

Niles Register, during 18 16, made frequent 
mention of the continuing immigration. Dur- 
ing the following winter immigration was 
"powerful" and would increase. 1 In Septem- 
ber, 1817, an article favoring immigration es- 
timated the average at ten thousand per year. 
That year it would be thirty thousand. 2 The 
arrivals for one week in 1819 were given as 
1,414. Then came the first note of disap- 
proval, as follows: "The time has been when 
we were pleased to see the progress of emi- 
gration, it is now painful to observe it, because 
of the want of employment for our own peo- 
ple." 3 A few weeks later 4 the swelling tide 
of foreigners had aroused greater apprehen- 
sions, and the first fears of foreign paupers 
were expressed. "We have always until just 
now greeted the stranger on his arrival here 
with pleasure." There had been room for all, 

1 Niles Register, XI, 359. 3 Ibid., July 31, 1819. 

2 Ibid., XIII, 35. 4 September 18, 1819. 



186 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

but the population in the maritime districts, 
and in some parts of the interior, seemed too 
dense. The western country was overstocked 
by the domestic emigration. A good many 
from England, disappointed in rinding employ- 
ment, were on their way home. 

It is reported, that to relieve themselves of their pau- 
pers, many such will be sent to the United States by the 
church wardens, etc., of England ! It will therefore become 
the state authorities to be careful to take the proper securi- 
ties of those who bring passengers, that they will not 
become chargeable on the public. 

Probably not fewer than four thousand per- 
sons had arrived in two weeks, and perhaps 
a thousand more in a month by way of Canada. 
The writer felt sure that forty thousand was 
more than had ever arrived in any one year, 
and that never had so many come any former 
year as that year. Yet, he said, the New York 
Gazette spoke of an estimate by a gentleman 
of 500,000 in five years as what the emigra- 
tion would amount to. 5 A week later it was 
said that perhaps three thousand had arrived 
the past week. This number was termed 
"enormous." 6 

In 1821 the editor thought: "It is not prob- 
able that 20,000 persons ever emigrated to the 
United States in any one year." 7 In 1822 

* Niles Register, XVII, 38. 

6 Ibid., 63. 1 Ibid., XX, 193. 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 187 

many more had arrived than during the last 
year. "They appeared to be substantial peo- 
ple." 8 At the close of the year the arrivals 
had been greatly overestimated. They ap- 
peared, from the official statement laid before 
Congress, to have been only 8,482 the past 
year. Also this number included citizens of 
the United States returning from foreign 
ports, but did not include those arriving by 
way of the St. Lawrence. 9 Late in 1823 Niles 
ventured the opinion that the United States 
in 1821 and 1822 "gained less than 6,000 per- 
sons from foreign places." 10 The same year 
he noted that twenty-six paupers had been 
sent over by a parish in Sussex, which had 
paid their passage and given them some 
money. 11 In 1827 it was noted that unusual 
numbers were arriving, of classes "mostly not 
such as we would generally prefer." 12 A year 
later a large number of English families had 
arrived lately at the expense of their parishes. 
The significant comment followed: "there is 
room enough for the poor people and our- 
selves." 13 

By the summer of 183 1 the sentiment of 
sympathy for paupers was fast going. Niles 

* Ibid., XXII, 155. 8 Ibid., XXIII, 305. 

10 Ibid., XXV, 232. He probably means each year. 

11 Ibid., XXIV, 113. 

12 Ibid., XXXII, 310. ls Ibid., XXXIV, 411. 



188 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

indorsed a Massachusetts law to allow no 
alien to land till the master of the vessel on 
which he came had paid the city five dollars. 
He would not check desirable immigration 
but concluded that the country was "wretched- 
ly imposed upon." The British were deluging 
their cities with paupers, and this required a 
strong corrective. 14 Again, immigration was 
very large. "The greater number of them are 
men of substance and character." "Some car- 
goes of English paupers are expected." 15 A 
little later there is a statement that all the 
cities are severely taxed to care for foreign 
paupers. Nearly half of the inmates of the 
New York almshouse were foreigners. Strong 
regulations should be adopted, "Let those 
who suck the orange not throw the peel at 
us." 16 Again (September 15, 1832), there 
was much greater immigration than ever be- 
fore — 100,000 or more already that year. Very 
many Germans were arriving at Philadelphia 
and Baltimore. They were hardy, healthy, 
and industrious, and nearly all, of them had 
the means of going to the interior. They 
would soon be among their most valuable citi- 
zens. They differed much from the loads of 
English paupers "shoveled upon us." They 

14 Loc. cit., XL, 74, 130. 

15 Ibid., 273; June 18, 1831. 16 Ibid., XLI, 356. 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 189 

would work and support themselves, and not 
fill the poorhouses. 17 

In 1833 there appeared a memorial of the 
mayor and council of Baltimore to the general 
assembly, calling for relief from the influx 
of foreign paupers. All reports of the health 
officers since 1827 had called attention to the 
destitute and diseased condition of emigrants. 
They were filling the almshouse, and swarms 
of foreign beggars were infesting the streets. 
While they would extend the right hand to every 
immigrant able and willing to support himself, 
they requested laws to protect them from 
others. 18 A little later Niles noted that a late 
law "may abate this nuisance." An unprece- 
dented number of immigrants from Germany 
were expected, sober and industrious, exactly 
the kind needed. 19 Again (June 8, 1833), i m ~ 
migrants were pouring in from Ireland, Eng- 
land, Scotland, and Wales; but the greater 
number, most probably, were from Germany. 
Many were of the best productive classes, 
while others were mere day laborers. They 
were patient and industrious, and exceedingly 
economical. 20 

As the country was passing through a 
most prosperous period, Niles recovered from 
his fears. In 1833, he wrote: 

17 Ibid., XLIII, 40. ™ Ibid., XLIV, 131. 

18 Ibid., 391. 20 Ibid., 233. 



190 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

There can not be a want of it [room] for some hundred 
years to come; and for the sake of the human race it is 
earnestly to be wished that the United States of America 
should have first rank among the nations of the earth, and 
remain " an asylum for the oppressed," the hope and pride 
of all men who love liberty. 21 

Six months later there was "a great surplus 
of labor just now," and he did "not wish new 
importations to send our own people supper- 
less to bed." 22 "We regret to see that many- 
emigrants are arriving from Europe f 
We are already much overstocked with la- 
borers." Foreign paupers were discharged 
on their shores. It seemed reasonable to ex- 
pect that the United States and Canada would 
receive one hundred thousand immigrants in 
1834. Many of the Germans were well pro- 
vided for, "though we had several shipments 
of disgusting paupers or beggars from Ger- 
many, a year or two ago." 23 

The foregoing ideas and extracts from one 
of the most intelligently edited papers cast 
much light upon the problem of immigration. 
They exhibit influences and tendencies the 
existence of which at that time has not been 
generally recognized. In connection with 
them the rapid increase of immigration there- 
after, the changes in its character, and the 

21 Loc. cit., XLV, 2. 

22 Ibid., XLVI, 1. 23 Ibid ^ 2l8) 244, 398. 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 191 

deterioration in its quality go far to explain the 
outbreak of Native-Americanism and Know- 
Nothingism, whose influence upon naturaliza- 
tion I am about to trace. 

The Native American Association or- 
ganized on a distinctly political basis at a 
meeting held in Washington on July 11, 1837, 
in the midst of the panic conditions of that 
year. The meeting was described as large, 
and composed of Native Americans of all 
parties. An address set forth the necessity 
for a repeal of the naturalization law, to save 
their institutions from the corruption of 
foreign countries and themselves from the loss 
of their birthright. A preamble and constitu- 
tion were unanimously adopted. The former 
declared that all governments were bound by 
the principles of national preservation to 
govern by their own citizens. The republican 
form of government of the United States was 
believed to be an object of fear and dislike to 
the advocates of monarchy in Europe. The 
United States were imperatively called upon 
to administer their peculiar system free from 
all foreign influence. By admitting strangers 
they were weakening the attachments of na- 
tives, and could gain only a sordid allegiance 
from foreigners. They were maintaining in 
its most extended form the right of the 



192 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

native-born American. He only should exer- 
cise the duties of government, from the high- 
est to the lowest post. To that end they said: 
"We shall advocate the entire repeal of the 
naturalization law by congress." As the con- 
stitution forbade ex post facto action, they 
sought only prospective action. They solemn- 
ly believed that Americans should unite as 
brothers. A critical period had been reached, 
when every wind blew ragged paupers to their 
cities, and brought elements of degradation 
and disorder. A great moral revolution was 
to be fought. 

The Constitution bound members to co- 
operate to procure the repeal of the naturaliza- 
tion laws by all lawful means ; not to hold 
guiltless the man who should place foreigners 
in office ; and declared that they would be a 
separate and independent party of Native 
Americans, and would not connect themselves 
to any religious sect or denomination. Reso- 
lutions were adopted to the effect that they 
would seek to support a Native American 
press in Washington, and would prepare an 
appeal to the Native Americans of the United 
States. 

At a later meeting 24 a memorial to Con- 
gress was unanimously adopted. It was de- 

24 December 26, 1837. 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 193 

scribed as the memorial of more than nine 
hundred citizens of the United States associa- 
ted at Washington under the name of the Na- 
tive American Association. It urged that the 
power to naturalize was given to Congress to 
add to the physical strength of the United 
States, attract skilled workmen, and draw 
capital thither. It had not been anticipated 
that it would be used so as to place "a large 
portion of the power of this government in 
the hands of adventurers of every clime," be- 
fore they learned the language, or the first 
principles of a republican government. The 
very short term of five years would not qualify 
a foreigner for citizenship. There was mani- 
fold injustice and soon to be serious danger in 
giving them such privileges. Already many 
of the most important elections had been 
swayed and decided by the votes of foreigners, 
notoriously ignorant, used by artful dema- 
gogues. Rome had lost her liberties by ad- 
mitting large bands of foreigners, and England 
had preserved hers by excluding them. They 
humbly believed that the fit time had arrived 
when the laws should be carefully revised and 
amended, or altogether repealed. 

A strong plea was made against pauper and 
criminal immigrants. The governments of 
Europe, seeking to free themselves from a 



194 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

vast increase of pauperism and crime, had 
chosen the free and happy American land for 
their criminal and burdensome classes. Any 
wish to shut doors against reputable immi- 
grants was disclaimed. They desired the land 
to continue for all time, in a fair and proper 
sense, "an asylum for the oppressed of all na- 
tions." To worthy foreigners they would say: 
"Come to us and be at rest;" mingle not in 
politics ; be content to be governed, and seek 
not to govern those who entertain you and 
give you shelter and protection; exercise free- 
ly every religious and social right, but do not 
expect political privileges, at least until length 
of residence has guaranteed you to be fully 
acquainted with the nature and extent of the 
obligations of American citizens. 

In conclusion they prayed Congress to re- 
peal the naturalization laws, or so modify them 
as best to secure to native citizens the full en- 
joyment of the privileges and rights they were 
entitled to under the Constitution; and also to 
make ample provision for the , protection of 
the United States from any future influx of 
foreign paupers and convicts. 

Patton, who presented the memorial, 25 
moved its reference to a select committee and 
accepted instructions to the committee, moved 

25 January 8, 1838. 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 195 

by Lincoln, to consider the expediency of 
revising and amending the laws so as to re- 
quire a longer term of residence in the United 
States previous to the admission of foreigners 
to citizenship, and greater checks and securi- 
ties against frauds in the means and process of 
obtaining naturalization; also legislation re- 
garding vagrants and paupers sent to the 
United States. Debate arose on the question 
of reference, the opposition seeking to send 
it to the Committee on Judiciary; and it was 
laid on the table to take its turn under the 
rules. 26 Hopeless, apparently, of securing a 
select committee, although soon after a less 
imposing memorial was referred to one, 
Lincoln at length moved to instruct the Ju- 
diciary Committee as above, and it was done. 27 
A memorial of over five hundred citizens 
of two towns of Massachusetts urged an in- 
quiry to solve four questions: (1) whether 
there were designs against the liberties of the 
country by means of an influx of foreign im- 
migration ; (2) whether the character of the 
immigration did not augur a vast increase of 
pauperism and crime in the land; (3) whether 
oaths of allegiance were not binding some to 

26 (320) House Journal, Twenty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 
235; (325) House Executive Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, 
Second Session, V, No. 98. 

27 (320) House Journal, Twenty-fifth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 465. 



196 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

a foreign despotic prince, and whether such 
had equal claims upon the government with 
dutiful subjects, or were entitled to the con- 
fidence of the nation; (4) whether there was 
not a foreign conspiracy against the govern- 
ment, and measures and plans working for its 
execution. They entreated that a faithful in- 
vestigation be made and action taken. 28 

A few weeks later the subject was again 
brought before Congress in the memorial of 
ninety-seven electors of Washington County, N. 
Y., praying a revision of the laws regulating the 
naturalization of foreigners. It declared that 
the easy access of foreigners of doubtful 
morals and hostile political principles to the 
elective franchise was a source of danger to 
the country's civil and religious liberties. The 
Constitution had not contemplated a majority 
hostile to its principles. Since naturalization 
laws had been thought to be necessary, let 
them be adequate to their defense. They had 
deep concern at the influx of Catholics, but 
sought legislative defense only against the 
political principles interwoven with their 
religion. They desired inquiry as to whether 
a plan was not in operation for the subversion 
of their liberties by gaining American suf- 
frage for Catholics from Europe ; and whether 

28 House Executive Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Sec- 
ond Session, II, No. 70. 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 197 

an amendment of the naturalization laws 
could more fully secure American institu- 
tions, liberties, etc., against the danger of sub- 
version by foreign influence, and despotic ty- 
rannical principles even under the cloak of 
religion. Here were Know-Nothing princi- 
ples in full bloom, with foreigners and Catho- 
lics both to be feared. This time reference 
to a special committee was secured without 
any apparent opposition, and, later, various 
other papers, including that of the Native 
American Association, were referred to the 
same committee. 29 

Among these later papers was a memorial 
from citizens of New York City. The great 
and rapidly increasing influx of foreigners, the 
character and condition of a large proportion 
of them, the indiscriminate freedom by which 
suffrage was given them, they urged, were 
evils which wrongfully deprived "us" of "our" 
native rights, and fearfully tended to the de- 
struction of their government and their liber- 
ties. They referred to "grievous frauds" in 
the execution of the Naturalization Law, and 
to paupers and criminals oppressing and de- 

20 The committee consisted of Russell (N. Y.), Lincoln (Mass.), 
Beatty (Ky.), Casey (111.), and Jackson (Mass.). Jackson soon 
after was excused, and Rhett (S. C.) took his place. (320) House 
Journal, Twenty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 576, 614; (327) 
House Executive Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, VII, No. 154. 



198 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

moralizing. The time for naturalization was 
quite too short. They earnestly prayed an 
amendment requiring twenty-one years' resi- 
dence of all aliens not already having declared 
intentions, before they should be entitled to 
the suffrage. If guilty of crime that would 
disqualify a native, even that residence should 
not qualify them. The power to grant cer- 
tificates of naturalization should be confined 
to Congress, the Supreme Court, and the su- 
perior courts of the states. 30 This was, per- 
haps, the first mention of the twenty-one 
years' residence period in a document that 
reached Congress. 

Some time before this agitation began, the 
report of a legislative committee of Louisiana 
had shown a 50 per cent, increase of patients 
in the charity hospital of New Orleans coin- 
cident with unprecedented good health in the 
city. Of nearly six thousand inmates, nearly 
70 per cent, had been aliens. The Baltimore 
American had reported that among the in- 
mates of the almshouses of Boston, New York, 
Philadelphia, and Baltimore, in all over ten 
thousand, there were 10 per cent, more 
foreigners than Americans. These reports re- 
lated to the year 1835. In 1837 the mayor of 
New York, allowed by state law to collect 

30 (329) House Executive Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, 
Second Session, IX, No. 313. 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 199 

from one to ten dollars as commutation 
money in place of taking from masters of 
vessels an indemnity bond to secure the city 
from foreign paupers, decided to collect ten 
dollars per passenger instead of the one dollar 
before collected. 31 

The report of the Select Committee on 
Foreign Paupers and Naturalization laws 32 
contained 116 pages, and included a report 
from the secretary of state and one from the 
secretary of the treasury. It referred to simul- 
taneous appeals to Congress from different 
sections to save the country from the blight- 
ing influence of a pauper, vagrant, and male- 
factor population sent over at the expense of 
foreign governments, arriving destitute, and 
becoming at once burdensome. One-half of 
the pauper population of the United States and 
three-fourths of the convicts in Sing Sing were 
foreign. The foreign population of the United 
States was about one in nineteen. Foreign in- 
fluence was most dangerous to governments, 
and the influence of the Old World monarchies 
was especially so to the United States. The 
idea that foreigners on their arrival were 
entitled to the privileges of citizenship was not 
well founded. Some were worthy, but no rule 
of discrimination could be adopted without 

81 Niles Register, XLIX, 62, 69; LII, 250. 
32 July 2, 1838. 



200 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

creating invidious distinctions. The commit- 
tee concluded that the term of probation 

should be extended Erom five years to 

years. Owing to great complaint of frauds in 
the lower courts, and in order to preserve 
uniformity in the execution of the laws, natu- 
ralization should be confined to the courts of 
the United States or to the supreme court in 
the states. Record of the previous declara- 
tion of intention was also thought advisable. 
An appendix contained reports from Ameri- 
can consuls in regard to the deportation of 
paupers from Europe. Passage from Bremen 
was as low as sixteen dollars. Hamburg had 
deported condemned criminals to New York. 
Some Irish landholders, where tenants were 
becoming too numerous, had sent from Dublin 
perhaps a hundred a year for live or six years. 
From Liverpool and London it was reported 
that some parishes sent abroad their excess 
population, always giving from Wvc to ten 
pounds in money besides passage and food. 
Convicts, workhouse inmates, the old and de- 
crepit, were never sent. Six hundred were 
sent from Liverpool in ICS30 by parishes, five 
hundred in 1832, and not more than three 
hundred in any year since. Tn 1831 complaint 
had been made to England of an act of the 
Jamaica government under which American 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 201 

vessels touching at that island had been com- 
pelled to carry away a number of paupers pro- 
portioned to the size of the vessel. 33 

The committee, after obtaining permission, 
introduced two bills, which after some debate, 
were sent to the Committee of the Whole on 
the State of the Union. 34 One member of the 
special committee, Beatty, asked for time that 
he might submit a counter report. He pro- 
tested against the monstrous doctrine in the 
report, reviving in full force the doctrines of 

1798. 

Late in the following session of Congress, 
the House referred to the committee of the 
whole "to which is committed the bill re- 
ported last session'' a memorial "signed, it 
is believed, by several thousand citizens of 
the state of Louisiana." 35 They asserted 
that hundreds of foreigners, alien to the ob- 
ligations they so readily incurred, were daily 
acquiring rights. Both parties, throughout 
the United States, made constant charge of 
bribery of foreigners in elections and this 
was imperiling the welfare of the country. 
The existing facilities for naturalization were 

33 (336) House Reports of Committees, Twenty-fifth Congress, 
Second Session, II, No. 70. 

84 (320) House Journal, 1207; Congressional Globe, 489; July 
2, 1838. 

35 Congressional Globe, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Session, 
178; February 7, 1839. 



202 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

highly injurious to the safety and perpetuity 
of free institutions. A dreadful deterioration 
of morals and increase of crime were appar- 
ent within ten or fifteen years. Seven hun- 
dred convicts had been sent out from one 
place. The whole country was suffering. 
They would not abridge the rights of those 
naturalized or who had declared intentions, 
but they wished the passage of a law putting 
native-born and naturalized citizens at least 
on an equal footing. 36 They solicited the 
entire repeal of the naturalization acts then 
in force, and ample provision for the protec- 
tion of the United States from the indiscrimi- 
nate influx of foreign emigrants. Should 
these things be delayed, ere long they would 
have to sue at the footstool of a power alien 
in feelings, prejudices, and aspirations. 37 

The Twenty-Fifth Congress expired with- 
out further action on these subjects. There 
was, however, a resolution introduced look- 
ing to the exclusion from the privileges of 
citizenship of the children of persons who 
removed from the United States and took 
the oath of allegiance to the government in 
which they resided, until they should become 

36 This is doubtless a plea for twenty-one years' residence be- 
fore naturalization, and indicates that the argument for it had been 
developed. 

37 (347) House Executive Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, 
Third Session, IV, No. 162. 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 203 

naturalized like other foreigners. Debate 
arose upon this, and it was laid over under 
the rules, not to appear again. 38 

During 1840 much attention was given in 
and out of Congress to the naturalization 
question, and a strong effort was made in 
both the Senate and the House to repeal the 
existing laws. In the House easier naturali- 
zation was sought; in the Senate, more 
stringent legislation. The matter was more 
quiet the following year, and in 1842 there 
might seem the indication of a reaction in 
a proposition debated briefly in the Senate 
to return to the two-year requirement of the 
act of 1790. In 1843, however, the twenty- 
one-year agitation became distinctly aggres- 
sive. Thereafter, until the Civil War, it had 
to be reckoned with continuously as an im- 
portant political factor. Sometimes, in vari- 
ous eastern states, the issue involved in it 
dominated all other issues. 

Two letters written in 1840 by the Whig 
candidate for president give an indication of 
the political importance already attached to 
the question of naturalization. The first was 
written 39 to a committee in Indiana. It ac- 
knowledged the receipt of a letter mention- 

38 (343) House Journal, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Session, 
398; January 28, 1839. 

39 July 4, 1840. 



204 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

ing a report prevailing "that I am averse to 
emigrants from foreign countries being nat- 
uralized short of twenty years," and declared 
that he had never ceased to pronounce this 
a calumny. On the contrary, he had done 
everything in his power to facilitate the ac- 
quisition of citizenship by those near him; 
and, when in Congress, to give them before 
their naturalization the same privileges in 
taking up and holding public lands as na- 
tives. 40 In the other letter he wrote to a 
Philadelphian: 

Through the whole course of my political life, I am 
satisfied, that no sentence ever fell from my lips, which 
could be construed into an unfriendly feeling to the 
Europeans who have emigrated hither, to enjoy the advan- 
tages which our free institutions afford, or a wish to 
extend the period, which is fixed by the existing laws, for 
their full admission to the rights of citizenship. 41 

A petition from Louisiana, in form at 
least the same as that before the House in 
the previous Congress, was referred to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee early in 1840. 42 
It sought the entire repeal of the naturaliza- 
tion laws, and new stringent legislation on 
the subject. The committee reported that 
the prayer of the petitioners ought not to be 

40 Niles Register, LVIII, 397. 

41 North American Review, LII, 220; January, 1841. 
* 2 January 7. 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 205 

granted. 43 Two other petitions for the re- 
peal of the naturalization laws, one of these 
from citizens of Louisiana and the other, pre- 
sented by Clay, from citizens of the United 
States engaged in the navigation of the west- 
ern waters, were laid on the table. The Sen- 
ate adopted the report of its committee. 44 

At the same session the Senate passed a 
joint resolution for the printing of all the natu- 
ralization laws "as soon as practicable," but it 
seems not to have passed the House. 45 Mean- 
while, in the House, Hand (N. Y.) had ob- 
tained leave and introduced a bill to estab- 
lish a uniform rule of naturalization, and to 
repeal all existing acts on that subject. A 
controversy ensued as to its reference, but 
it went to the Judiciary Committee and re- 
mained there. 46 Early in the following session 
Hand again got leave and presented a simi- 
lar bill. This time he pressed the question of 
reference to a vote, and lost by a narrow ma- 
jority. He wished to send it to the Commit- 
tee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, where thus early in the session he 

43 February 12, 1840. 

44 February 18, 1840. (353) Senate Journal, Twenty-sixth 
Congress, First Session, 81, 174, 179, 187, 208; (340) Senate 
Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Session, III, No. 246. 

45 C353) Senate Journal, Twenty-sixth Congress, First Session, 
330, 357, 363- 

46 (362) House Journal, Twenty-sixth Congress, First Session, 
556, 587. See also Congressional Globe. 



206 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

might expect to secure discussion upon it. 
On the other hand, it was argued that so im- 
portant a subject should go to the Judiciary 
Committee. The vote was 96 to 90. Hand 
received practically the solid support of the 
Democratic party. John Quincy Adams 
wrote in his diary at the time that it was the 
second vote in which a sufficient number of 
the Kinderhook time-servers had given way 
to turn the majority. 47 A motion to recon- 
sider the reference was debated at some 
length, but the debate is not reported. It 
was lost by a vote of 90 to 93, 48 and the bill 
was left to be buried by an unfavorable com- 
mittee. 

About the same time the Legislature of 
Missouri passed a memorial which was pre- 
sented in the House and referred a year 
later. 49 This memorial referred to the exist- 
ing excitement and discussion; to societies 
organized to procure the repeal of exist- 
ing laws and the passage of a law extend- 
ing the time of residence required for natur- 
alization; and, finally, to the bill introduced 
in Congress by Hand to effect those pur- 

47 J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, X, 375. 

48 (381) House Journal, Twenty-sixth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 29, 42, 48, 59, 73. See also Congressional Globe. 

49 This memorial was approved February 16, 1841, and re- 
ferred on January 7, 1842. 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 207 

poses. 50 It declared that the objects of such 
societies are disapproved by the General As- 
sembly of Missouri, "as being illiberal, intol- 
erant in spirit, intending to rivet the bondage 
of mankind in the old world, and as unwise 
in effect, in repressing emigration to this 
country, and retarding its population and 
improvement." Senators were instructed and 
representatives requested to oppose the re- 
peal of any law that provided for the natur- 
alization of aliens, and to resist all measures 
designed to cause further delay or difficulty 
in the attainment of citizenship. 51 Nearly 
coincident with this action of the Missouri 
Legislature was the adoption by the Louisi- 
ana House of Representatives, by a vote of 
25 to 10, of a resolution requesting that 
state's senators and representatives in Con- 
gress to endeavor to procure a change in the 
laws to require twenty-one years' consecu- 
tive residence in the United States for nat- 
uralization. 52 

In the committee of the whole in the 
House, during a debate on the Treasury-Note 
Bill, in January, 1841, Duncan (Ohio) ex- 
hibited a bill on the subject of naturalization 

50 This memorial shows a complete misconception of the char- 
acter of Hand's bill. 

51 (402) House Executive Documents, Twenty-seventh Con- 
gress, Second Session, IT, No. 37. 

52 Niles Register, LIX, 404. 



208 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

that he intended to introduce, and explained 
that he expressed his views upon it then lest 
he should have no opportunity to introduce 
it. The object of the bill was to secure to 
those fleeing from despotism the rights and 
privileges that the ancestors of Americans 
secured by their flight. The elective fran- 
chise was the principal ingredient of free gov- 
ernment. He had ever thought that the fran- 
chise as related to foreigners was unneces- 
sarily limited and trammeled. Its difficulty 
and expense were incompatible with the 
nature of their free institutions. He had ever 
intended expressing his decided hostility to 
the naturalization laws as they existed, and 
trying to amend them in harmony with the 
nature of their government and the spirit of 
the Constitution. The government, at first 
an experiment, had been trammeled in some 
of its institutions. He would have it as free 
as the experience of the age would permit. 
There was no longer apology for restrictions, 
incompatible with their free institutions and 
personal rights, and originally founded in a 
lack of confidence in the people. He wished 
a shorter residence requirement, and natur- 
alization with as little trouble and expense 
as possible. He would have the alien enjoy 
all the rights and privileges of the native- 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 209 

born, not denied by the Constitution, upon 
taking the oath of allegiance. Jefferson had 
thought thus, and the Democratic party had 
always favored the least possible restraint 
upon naturalization and upon the suffrage. The 
Federalists limited speech, debate, the press, 
and the franchise. They "throw all the re- 
strictions and embarrassments possible in 
the way of naturalization," and are now en- 
deavoring, in violation of the Constitution, 
to deprive foreigners of the rights of citizen- 
ship. Proofs of his assertion were the act of 
1798, passed by the Federalists and opposed 
by the Democrats in Congress and out; the 
act of 1802, opposed by the Federalists and 
passed by the Democrats by the hardest ef- 
fort. During the past winter, Hand, a Demo- 
crat, had early introduced a bill to shorten 
the residence requirement. It was referred 
to the Committee on Judiciary, a majority 
of whom were Federalists or modern Whigs, 
and "no power on earth was able to rescue 
it from their hands. It slept the sleep of 
death." A similar bill had been introduced 
at the commencement of that session, and a 
motion to refer it to a Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union 
failed by a party vote. Reference to the Ju- 
diciary Committee carried by a party vote, 



210 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

"every Federalist in the House voting for 
it and the Democracy against it, and there 
that bill now is safe for an eternal sleep." 
He could make a book of the party struggles 
on the subject of naturalization. The Fed- 
eralists no longer stopped at restrictions and 
embarrassments, but sought to overthrow 
the privilege and constitutional rights of nat- 
uralization. They were seeking to make the 
foreigner a vassal. 

Moreover, the country was overspread by 
Native American associations, whose object 
was shown by a petition from Illinois. It de- 
clared that time had "fulfilled the object had 
in view by our fathers" in giving Congress 
the power to naturalize foreigners, and that 
"farther admission of foreigners to a partici- 
pation in the political rights of native Ameri- 
cans would be hurtful to the interests of our 
country." It would sooner or later prove de- 
structive to their republican institutions. At- 
tention was asked to petitions for repealing 
naturalization laws, and the entire repeal of 
such laws. In view of their object, these 
Federalist associations were infamous. In an 
address one of them has said : 

We do solemnly resolve to oppose the election or 
appointment of any but American citizens to office, and 
henceforward use our united efforts and unsparing zeal to 



BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 211 

procure such an alteration in the naturalization laws as 
shall exclude from the right of suffrage all foreigners who 
come into the country after such law has passed. 

Duncan declared further that Federalist op- 
position to foreigners was due to a preponder- 
ance of Germans and Irish among the immi- 
grants, and to the fact that they were Demo- 
crats. The Federalists wished to abolish or 
prohibit the franchise of Irish and Germans 
because the latter were opposed to Federalist 
principles and institutions. He would main- 
tain and extend their franchise because they 
favored democratic principles and institu- 
tions. The names of Lafayette, DeKalb, and 
Montgomery attested the obligation that was 
due to foreign blood poured out in the Revo- 
lution. The national jealousy and selfishness 
which shut out the foreigner rarely ever 
failed to produce evils. Good policy dictated 
admitting them. He closed with an appeal 
to foreigners to support democracy in order 
to secure to themselves the liberties which 
the Revolution had purchased. 53 

It was in August, 1842, that Walker in the 
Senate asked leave to bring in a bill "to re- 
duce from five to two years the term of resi- 
dence required for the naturalization of for- 
eigners." This led to some discussion. 

53 Congressional Globe, Twenty-sixth Congress, Second Session, 
Appendix, 266; January, 1841. 



212 NATURALIZATION IN UNITLU STATKS 



A rolior (Va.) declared that the subject was 
loo grave lo discuss at the heel of the ses- 
sion. Me believed that naturalization laws 
were sufficient for all present purposes, and 
hoped that the Senate would resist the bill 
at the threshold. lie moved lo lay the re- 
quest (^\ the table. Walker replied that he 
was only seeking lo revive the original act, 
sanctioned by Washington. Why should 
that be thought extraordinary! The aliens 
in 1830 had numbered 107,832. They were 
not counted in 1840; but if they had increased 
in proportion to the immigration, they num- 
bered (hen 283,513. Me objected entirely lo 
the existence of so many aliens among the 
population, particularly as he did not believe 
they desired to be aliens. Increasing the 
number of aliens increased the jurisdiction of 
the federal courts. The vast immigration 
would increase the business of the Supreme 
Court prodigiously, and it was already so 
great that the court could do only one half 
of its business at the last session. The de- 
bate in the McLeod case had called attention 
to I he matter. Looking at what had taken 
place that very session 111 relation to cases 
in which aliens were parties, he was really 
alarmed at the enormous stretch of federal 
power. There was a necessity of diminish 



BEGINNINGS 01< NATIVE AMERICANISM "3 

ing the number of individuals tn respect to 

whom the jurisdiction of the federal courts 
could be applied. If he had anticipated 
the possibility of any such objections as 
had been offered to the introduction of 
the bill, he might state other reasons more 
at length. lie did not even then apprehend 
that the unusual course of refusing in- 
troduction to the bill would be taken. 
Every steamboat to the \\ est was crowded 
with emigrants, going to purchase lands and 
place their families there. Their exclusion 
from citizenship had been sc> severely felt that 
two of the western states had given them 
the right to vote. This anomalous state of 
things was the result of changing the resi- 
dence requirement from two to five years. 
There was no reason why men should not be- 
come citizens at the end o\ two as well as of 
five years. In case oi war they had 300,000 
aliens, mostly along the western frontier, who 
would be claimed by a foreign power. He 
rejoiced to see the numbers coming, wel- 
comed them, and called attention to the ef- 
forts being put forth to divert them to the 
British colonies, and particularly to Australia, 
by granting the privilege of citizenship. Ar- 
cher made answer that he was totally averse 
to other terms of naturalization. Their ances- 



214 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

tors had soon changed from two to fourteen 
years, and then back to an intermediate 
term. Five years was a proper, just, and 
reasonable time. No good man ever re- 
nounced entirely his attachment to his native 
soil. Would it be proper in any sense to 
admit as citizens a large class having foreign 
attachments and feelings adverse to theirs? 
He desired to stigmatize the proposition by 
its immediate rejection. King thought cour- 
tesy alone might dictate a vote against 
Archer's motion. Walker's request was, 
however, laid on the table by a vote of 21 to 
18. 



CHAPTER XII 

THE PERIOD OF AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERI- 
CANISM 

About forty petitions asking for amend- 
ment of the naturalization laws were re- 
ceived in both Senate and House during the 
session of 1843-44. Some of them contained 
hundreds of signatures. One was said to be 
the petition of ten thousand citizens of New 
York state. 1 One from Wisconsin Territory 
sought an extension of the suffrage to resi- 
dents of the territories. 2 Two from western 
New York were in the interests of alien sail- 
ors whose employment took them out of the 
territory of the United States during their 
preliminary residence period. 3 Nearly all of 
the others sought to extend the residence 
period for naturalization to twenty-one years. 

Buchanan presented one in the Senate 
numerously signed by citizens of Philadel- 
phia. He said that he could not advocate 
the prayer it contained, nor consent to the 
requirement of twenty-one years' residence. 
He was opposed to> any change in the natu- 

1 (438) House Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, First Session, 
433- 

2 Ibid., 357; February 7, 1844. s Ibid., 706, 717. 

215 



2i 6 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

ralization laws. The memorialists, however, 
were anxious for a decision as early as pos- 
sible, and he thought that there were impera- 
tive reasons why it should be made. He 
moved reference to the Judiciary Committee, 
and expressed his strong desire that they re- 
port with as little delay as possible. Twice 
thereafter he repeated his strong desire for 
a speedy report. 4 

Sturgeon presented one of the petitions, 
and was far from concurring in the necessity 
for the action sought. It was his conviction 
that foreigners ought to be entitled to citizen- 
ship as soon as they were ready to give sat- 
isfactory proof of a preference for the coun- 
try and its institutions such as induced them 
to make it a permanent residence. Since it 
was difficult to act on a presumption of in- 
tentions, he believed that the law as it stood 
was, on the whole, best calculated to obviate 
all difficulties. He thought that foreigners 
ought not to object to the restriction, 
since in many states native citizens could 
not enjoy the privileges of state citizenship 
till after two years' residence. 5 There was 
further discussion a few days later 6 upon the 

* Congressional Globe, Twenty-eighth Congress, First Session, 
675; June 1, 1844. 

5 Ibid., 691, June 6, 1844. 

6 June ii, 1844. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 217 

presentation of two memorials from Phila- 
delphia asking for twenty-one years' resi- 
dence and "more solemn sanctions." Archer 
said that the time was too short before ad- 
journment to admit of the possibility of de- 
cided action. On a proper occasion, if no 
other person did so, he would make the 
necessary motion to secure the object of the peti- 
tioners. Berrien, of the Judiciary Commit- 
tee, said that this was a question of the great- 
est importance and had been so considered 
from the foundation of the government. Re- 
cently it had been productive of great excite- 
ment, the result of which was deeply to be 
deplored. 7 This prayer was presented at a 
very late period of the session, when the com- 
mittee had a variety of matter before it. He be- 
lieved it was too late to secure deliberate action 
of the committee. 

Allen was utterly opposed to any such 

7 The diary of John Quincy Adams, for May 9, 1844, ex- 
plained what he termed a new subject of political excitement that 
must have great influence for good or evil "(God grant it may be 
for good)" upon the future history and fortunes of the Union. 
There was a deadly feud between the native American poor popu- 
lation and the Roman Catholic Irish multitudes gathered in the city 
of Philadelphia. Animosities between those classes had been fer- 
menting in all the Atlantic cities for several years, much aggra- 
vated by the pernicious factious influence of Irish Catholics over 
the elections in all the populous cities. The reaction of the native 
American population had effected a total revolution at the recent 
election of the city government of New York, and had just broken 
out in furious riots in Philadelphia, where from the first of the 
week a succession of bitterly exasperated mobs had destroyed multi- 
tudes of human lives, dwelling-houses, schools, and churches, un- 
restrained by the government of the city or of the state (XII, 24). 



218 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

change of laws to the prejudice of the people. 
It involved manifest injustice and inhuman- 
ity. Nothing could tend more to exasperate 
the feelings of men, disturb harmony, and ex- 
cite hostility to their institutions in the very 
bosom of the country. He should resist it 
to the utmost. 8 Benton presented two memo- 
rials, but was opposed to their prayer, agreed 
with Allen, and was favorable to the largest 
liberty. 9 

On June 15, 1844, Berrien reported for the 
Senate Committee on Judiciary on sundry 
memorials before it. The question was one 
of awakening interest and affected a policy 
little varied from the commencement of the 
government. The memorialists thought that 
changes in conditions rendered proper a 
modification of the laws. The committee 
was disposed to treat their suggestions with 
deserved respect, and to give the questions 
involved the most deliberate consideration. 
But it was obviously impracticable to give 
them the needed consideration, and impos- 
sible that any action should be had, at that 
session. They therefore asked to be dis- 
charged from further consideration of the 
subject. 10 

8 Congressional Globe, Twenty-eighth Congress, First Session, 
65S; June 11, 1844. 

8 Ibid., 658, 686. 

10 (436) Senate Documents, Twenty-eighth Congress, First Ses- 
sion, 395. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 219 

In the House during this session three dif- 
ferent members gave notice of a motion to 
be made for leave to introduce a bill to amend 
the naturalization laws, but it does not ap- 
pear that any bills were introduced upon the 
subject. John Quincy Adams presented a 
Pennsylvania petition praying for such 
amendments to the naturalization laws that 
twenty-one years' residence after they had 
declared their intentions should be made the 
indispensable prerequisite to the admission 
of foreigners into the inestimable rights of 
American citizens. Adams said that he pre- 
sented the petition in a formal way because 
it related to a subject of considerable im- 
portance upon which there was considerable 
difference of opinion. He was willing to af- 
ford the unknown petitioners the satisfaction 
of having their matter brought pointedly be- 
fore the House; but he would not bind him- 
self in any way to support their prayer. In 
his diary he wrote that he presented the pe- 
tition of 180 Native Americans of Philadel- 
phia praying for a change in the naturaliza- 
tion laws and twenty-five years' 11 residence 
for political rights; but he did not approve 
of the change in the law, and felt obliged to 

11 Either "twenty-five" was used as a round number, and may 
thus indicate the newness of the twenty-one year agitation, or it is 
an evident error. The House Journal is explicit with reference to 
this petition. 



220 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

say that he could not support it. He had 
moved its reference to the Committee on Ju- 
diciary, but a motion to lay on the table, by 
Brown (Ind.) and Hammett (Miss.), had 
carried by a vote of 128 to 26. 12 

After two weeks Adams secured the re- 
moval of the petition from the table and its 
reference to the Judiciary Committee. Near 
the close of the session he was seeking a copy 
of it of the clerk, and intending to see whether 
the National Intelligencer would publish it. 
He wrote that it was the first memorial on 
the subject presented to the House, and 
predicted that at the next session of Congress 
the Native American party would be heard 
in both houses, when the proceedings of the 
House on that first memorial would have a 
material influence on the debate. 13 

The extreme note in the Native American 
agitation of this period was perhaps struck 
in a work on the Civil Government of the 
Hebrews by Professor Wines. He would 
welcome the immigrants fleeing from wrongs, 
but go to Moses for a public policy and study 
the principle of his naturalization laws. Ad- 
mission to citizenship was called "entering 
into the congregation of Jehovah." Certain 

12 Memoirs, XII, 40. 

13 (438) House Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, First Session, 
988, 1 130; Congressional Globe, Twenty-eighth Congress, First 
Session, 633; May 31, 1844; J. Q. Adams' Memoirs, XII, 40, 65. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 221 

races were not to be admitted to the tenth 
generation — in other words, never. Some 
other foreigners could become Israelitish 
citizens in the third generation. In other 
words, the grandchildren of immigrants 
could be admitted to the privileges of natives 
of the soil. Thus naturalization in senti- 
ments, habits, sympathies, and manners was 
required before privileges were given by a 
legal naturalization. The principle must 
commend itself, but need not always be ap- 
plied in equal rigor. 14 

During the next session of Congress thirty 
Native American petitions found mention in 
the Senate Journal, and a larger number were 
received by the House, including some of the 
former ones. A resolution by Johnson in- 
structed the Senate Judiciary Committee to 
inquire into the expediency of modifying the 
laws to extend the term allowed to enable 
foreigners to become citizens, to require 
greater guards against fraud in the steps to 
be taken in procuring naturalization papers, 
and to prevent, as far as practicable, fraud 
and violence at elections. To this resolution 
was added by an amendment, "and prohibit 
the introduction of foreign convicts into the 
United States." 15 

14 Nile s Register, LXVII, 162. 

15 (448) Senate Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 30. 



222 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

A resolution submitted by Barrow a little 
later gave similar instructions for an inquiry 
to be made whether naturalization papers 
had been granted to foreigners by any fed- 
eral or state court in violation of the pro- 
visions of the laws of Congress; also with 
regard to empowering the district court to 
cancel and declare null all naturalization 
papers which were found, upon judicial in- 
vestigation, to have been granted in viola- 
tion or fraud of the laws of Congress. 16 

The Johnson resolution called forth some 
vigorous expressions of opinion before it was 
referred. Johnson held that the facilities 
with which foreigners had been naturalized 
for a few years past, the perjuries committed, 
the fraud and violence controlling elections, 
proved the necessity of an immediate change 
in the naturalization laws. There was no 
doubt that public sentiment everywhere called 
loudly for prompt action. Thousands of for- 
eigners were naturalized and voted within a 
few weeks after reaching America. In New 
York City alone over three thousand persons 
were naturalized a few days before an elec- 
tion. A Philadelphia vigilance committee 
had reported 305 votes in a single ward, and 
not one of the persons was found after ten 

16 Loc. cit., 40, 44. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 223 

days. The laws had been valuable at first, 
and had brought much development and 
many good citizens. Now the country was 
strong and did not need outside strength- 
There was no longer need to invite knowl- 
edge by promising political privileges. 17 
Some desirable persons might continue to 
come, but the mass was not desirable. He 
would grant property rights, but require a 
long residence for political rights. They 
must prohibit the sending of convicts and 
paupers. The question was one far above 
party considerations, and all were equally in- 
terested in guarding against dangers. 

Archer said that there was very great 
solicitude in the question by the people. He 
believed in his very conscience that it had 
become the most important question that 
could agitate the public mind. It was more 
than transcendental in magnitude and impor- 
tance, comprehending every other vital issue. 
He hoped for an early report. 

Rives had no hesitation in favoring an in- 
quiry as to frauds. There was no doubt as to 
the alarming extent of the abuses. He would 
not exclude nor unreasonably restrain nat- 
uralization; and would give every foreigner, 

17 This was a reference to an idea, not met with often, nor 
for a long time before, namely, that liberal naturalization laws were 
necessary to attract skilled and .educated foreigners who would 
be particularly serviceable to the country. 



224 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

when naturalized, his fair and just share in 
the government. The long and successful 
policy of the past seemed to him wise and 
prudent. But the practice had degenerated 
into a public mockery, and idle, empty form. 
A ridiculous pantomime made full-blown 
citizens, by platoons of twenty to fifty at the 
clerk's desk, of persons ignorant of the lan- 
guage. It was so in New York. Buffalo, 
Philadelphia, and probably in Louisiana. 
The evil came from relaxations from original 
provisions of the law. The remedy was to 
reinvigorate the present laws. Registry of 
arrival was important, and a full record in 
the certificate of naturalization. Making the 
declaration to a clerk, and the reduction of 
the time required for it from three to two 
years, were among the sources of the evils; 
also the repeal in 1828 of Jefferson's and 
Madison's provisions. It would be time 
enough to extend the period after restoring 
and trying those provisions. 

Merrick thought that the excitement 
should be directed against their own people 
who had abused the laws. Dickinson said 
that the resolutions apparently were not 
aimed at abuses, but at the system. It was 
impossible to improve men's condition by de- 
nying them political rights and privileges. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 225 

Foster thought that persons unfit for citizen- 
ship in five years after their arrival would be 
after twenty years. There was no moral test 
applied to those who were born in the United 
States. Berrien said that it was scarcely 
practicable to have a very prompt report. 
Great frauds were alleged, and considerable 
frauds seemed to be almost universally ad- 
mitted. Judging from the magnitude and 
delicacy of the inquiry, a prompt report was 
not to be expected. 18 

Buchanan, in remarks at the presentation 
of a memorial the next day, was against ex- 
tending the five-year period. If frauds as 
charged were established, he would go with 
the farthest-going in amending the laws to 
prevent them. 

Archer was extremely anxious to express 
his sentiments, but that was not the time for 
them. He perceived that there was to be a 
hot war in the country in relation to the sub- 
ject, and was deeply concerned at the indi- 
cations of the previous day's debate. He had 
hoped before that an impression had been 
produced on the Senate such as he knew 
prevailed in the country. He was grieved 
not to see that feeling there, but was glad 
that the people knew the Senate's position 

18 Congressional Globe, 32; December, 16, 1844. 



226 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

so early. It was not enough to cut off ex- 
crescences; they must eradicate the root of 
the evil. If the Senate did not give redress, 
the people would. 

A request from the Senate, made at the 
instance of Berrien of the Judiciary Commit- 
tee, 19 brought a report from the secretary of 
state as to the practice of foreign govern- 
ments in transporting paupers and criminals 
to the United States. Aside from a letter 
from Hamburg in 1832, showing that a num- 
ber of persons from prisons and houses of 
correction, claimed mostly to be guilty of 
boyish indiscretions, had been released and 
given passports to North America, nothing 
of consequence was shown in addition to 
what was in the report made in 1838. 20 

Five weeks before the expiration of the 
Twenty-Eighth Congress, Berrien made a 
preliminary report for the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. They had given earnest atten- 
tion to the subject, on account both of its in- 
trinsic importance and of the public feeling 
manifested in regard to it. They had issued 
commissions that were in process of execu- 
tion, and had "prepared a bill meanwhile cal- 

19 (448) Senate Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 50. 

20 (450) Senate Documents, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second 
Session, No. 42. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 227 

culated to supply the more prominent de- 
fects" of the existing system. They sub- 
mitted it on account of the short time remain- 
ing and the importance of action at that ses- 
sion, postponing further report until returns 
should be received from the commissions. 21 

A second report from Berrien's committee 
was made March 3, 1845, J ust at the close 
of the Twenty-Eighth Congress. 22 The com- 
missions for taking testimony in New York, 
Philadelphia, and Baltimore had completed 
their work too late for the committee to do 
more than present abstracts from the testi- 
mony they had taken. The New Orleans 
commission reported later. 

The investigation in New York was 
thorough, and included the collection of much 
testimony from judges, and clerks of courts, 
political workers, and others. A great deal 
of light is thrown upon the practical work- 
ings of the naturalization law in several 
classes of courts. Judge Hammond, of the 
Marine Court for the Southern District of 
New York, testified that for the first six of 
his ten years' service as a judge his court had 
probably naturalized more persons than any 
other one court of New York. Declarations 

21 Ibid., No. 59. 

22 (458) ibid., No. 173; March 3, 1845. 



228 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

and depositions were printed in blank and 
bound up in books for record. They were 
signed by the party and sworn to. A cer- 
tificate was taken away. Only one witness 
was required, except for those showing resi- 
dence between 1802 and 1812. He always 
examined persons orally; they subscribed 
their names and were sworn on the Bible. 
The character of the applicant, and his atti- 
tude toward the government and the Constitu- 
tion, were sworn to by the witness. He was 
not cross-examined with regard to them. 
Others testified to the same procedure in 
this respect in other courts, and that it was 
very much a matter of form or entirely nuga- 
tory, as questions were seldom asked. A 
witness was never known to hesitate to swear 
to these particulars. 

Since about 1839 or 1840 the Marine Court 
had interpreted literally the requirement of 
five years' residence in the United States. 
It had excluded eight persons in one week 
for having been out of the United States 
during their residence period. Before the 
time mentioned this requirement had been 
generally overlooked. Decisions upon this 
point in other courts had conflicted. A du- 
plicate certificate of naturalization was given 
when the original had been lost or destroyed. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 229 

The facts were sworn to if there was doubt 
about them. The judge knew of one case of 
a witness being convicted who had made a 
practice of testifying for applicants. Natur- 
alization was the only business the law al- 
lowed to be done on election day. About 
eighty in an eight-hour day was the most 
they had naturalized. At other than election 
times they averaged perhaps three or four 
a week. The clerk had once counted up 
eighteen hundred naturalizations in a year. 
Two thousand would probably be the ex- 
treme number, and some years the number 
was probably not one thousand. The clerk 
attended to the fees. A former clerk had 
probably compounded the fees, making an 
arrangement by which voucher slips were 
presented drawing on a sum of money de- 
posited with him. 

Another justice of the Marine Court had 
known the same person to get several dupli- 
cate certificates of his declaration of inten- 
tion. It was easy to get a duplicate after a 
naturalization in another court. The examin- 
ation was always oral, and often fifteen or 
twenty a day were rejected. Naturalizations 
at election times were mostly due to the in- 
ducement of others. At other times of the 
year "they were usually for the purpose of 



230 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

holding real estate. He had observed one 
political witness who appeared to be em- 
ployed for the purpose of giving testimony. 
Papers filled out in writing and in print had 
come to his court addressed to other courts. 
The parties bringing them had said that they 
got them at Tammany Hall and were sent 
there. An interpreter was often required — 
at the time of the last election in the case of 
nearly half of the applicants. Arrangements 
with committees had been made frequently 
by the former clerk, and tickets drawing upon 
a sum of money deposited had been accepted 
in place of fees. Papers had been withheld 
until the parties had voted. 

Another justice said that perjuries had been 
complained of to him. The courts' refusal to 
arrange with committees had driven the prin- 
cipal business to other courts. One judge 
could naturalize from fifty to a hundred per- 
sons in seven hours. The number would de- 
pend upon the intelligence of the parties, etc., 
and upon the care taken. 

Judge Vanderpoel, of the New York Su- 
perior Court, knew of no fraud. Before the 
decision of the State Supreme Court in Octo- 
ber, 1844, persons domiciled in the United 
States for five years, and sailors on the pack- 
ets with families in the United States, had 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 231 

been naturalized. The chief justice had told 
him that a decision favored this practice. 
When applicants were numerous, they were 
sworn by the clerk either in open court or in 
the clerk's office. They came next to this 
judge, who administered the general oath to 
the witness and indorsed the papers when he 
had approved them. In cases of doubt he 
examined them critically. The applicant and 
his witness then went into open court before 
another judge who was holding court, and 
took the printed oaths. In a majority of 
cases the applicants came with their prelimi- 
nary papers filled out. He believed that this 
was done by a naturalization committee in 
session at Tammany Hall, or by their oppo- 
nents. 

Henry Raymond testified that he arranged 
for the use of tickets recently, as he had done 
for years. There might have been a thousand 
or fifteen hundred tickets. 23 The parties paid 
their own fees if they were able. His com- 
mittee employed a dozen clerks who prepared 
papers and filled up affidavits. 

Henry E. Riell testified that he was presi- 
dent of the Naturalization Society of New 

23 Other testimony showed that a printed ticket was used with 
the names written in, in form as follows: 
"New York, Apr. 17, 1840. 

"The Marine Court will please naturalize George Terry. 
Endorsed: "Burlington, N.J." James John Valentine." 



232 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

York City. Its members were generally 
Democrats.. He made out most of the papers 
for Tammany. It was customary to advertise 
that the committee was in session. Tickets 
were issued, and he redeemed them. They 
were generally given to poor people — those 
who wished to pay their own fees went di- 
rectly to the court. The usual number natu- 
ralized through the agency of the committee 
at spring and fall elections was about one 
thousand, except that in the fall of 1840 
about three thousand were naturalized in five 
months. The parties invariably received 
their certificates at the time of their admis- 
sion, and voted for whom they pleased. 24 
They came to his committee voluntarily in 
all cases, and he took it for granted that they 
were Democrats. 

Other evidence indicated that the Whig 
committees had for a time pursued similar 
methods, but for two years past had resolved 
not to do so longer. 

The report of the Philadelphia commission 
dealt mainly with the numbers naturalized in 
various courts, and the fees charged. It 
showed, however, that sixty-four declarations 
of intention, fraudulently interpolated in the 
records of a court, and dated back two years 

24 Other testimony was to the effect that certificates were some- 
times withheld until after the parties had voted. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 233 

to admit of the prompt naturalization of the 
parties, had been discovered and annulled a 
few days before the election of 1840. At 
Baltimore various cases of fraudulent voting 
by using dead men's naturalization papers 
were discovered. The New Orleans report 
dealt with the testimony in the impeachment 
of a judge who was removed in 1844 for 
naturalizing with great haste, carelessness, 
informality, and disregard of legal require- 
ments. The reports show that the number 
of persons naturalized varied greatly in the 
different courts. It was much greater in the 
state courts, where the fees were lower and 
the requirements generally less rigid. Natu- 
ralizations were largely had within two 
weeks of election days. 

The fees varied greatly, being much higher 
in federal than in state courts. They were 
often reduced by arrangement with political 
committees. The legal fees ranged from 50 
cents to $3 for naturalization, and from 20 
cents to $1.25 for a declaration of intention. 
The fees had recently been much reduced in 
the New York state courts. 

There were many recommendations made 
by the witnesses, most of which were for the 
purpose of preventing fraud or of securing 
better-qualified citizens. The more important 



234 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

ant of them were already embodied in the bill 
of the committee before the commissions had 
finished their work. There was little demand 
for a long term of residence, but a general 
desire that a residence for six months or a 
year after naturalization should precede suf- 
frage. One would shorten the five-year term 
by this period. Others would prohibit natural- 
ization for some time before an election. Many 
would confine naturalization to United States 
courts, and there was a suggestion that 
special United States courts be established 
for naturalizing. A previous notice of inten- 
tion shortly before the application was 
favored. This should be served on the dis- 
trict attorney or a federal officer; or a notice 
with names of witnesses should be published. 
A certificate of declaration of intention should 
be evidence of the time of arrival in the 
United States. Again, applicants should be 
required to swear to their term of residence. 
They should also swear to their attachment 
to the Constitution, and to being well dis- 
posed to the government. A description of 
the person should be in the declaration of in- 
tention and in the certificate of naturaliza- 
tion, so that one person could not use the 
papers of another. The papers should be 
indorsed with signature, if the person could 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 235 

write, and the certificate should be produced 
at the polls. Vessels should deposit a list 
and description of all persons brought to the 
United States. Candidates for naturalization 
should understand and speak the English 
language, and should expressly abjure all 
temporal allegiance to the pope. Congress 
should fix all fees and forbid remitting any 
part of them; or again there should be no 
fees allowed. Persons should be punished 
for applying for naturalization in another 
court after having been once rejected. A 
wide door for fraud was in the granting of 
duplicate certificates of declaration of inten- 
tion. Sometimes fifty a day of these were ap- 
plied for in a single court at election time. 

Meanwhile the bill before the senate was 
entirely ignored to the end of the Congress. 
Its leading features were compulsory record 
of arrivals to form documentary evidence of 
length of residence, naturalization restricted 
to United States courts and to times remote 
from elections, the process of naturalization 
more minutely specified, fraud of any sort to 
be punished severely, and the naturalization 
secured by it to be annulled. The bill provid- 
ed that collectors of customs should receive 
reports of aliens arriving in the United 
States, and register in a book of record full 



236 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

descriptions of their persons, with countries, 
times and places of arrival, and vessels, places 
of residence in the United States, and mem- 
bers of their families. The declaration of in- 
tention to become a citizen could be made 
only in United States circuit and district 
courts, at least three years after the registry 
of arrival, upon petition and production of a 
duly authenticated certificate of registry. It 
must contain a full description as before, be 
subscribed in a book of record together with 
oath as to being the person described in the 
certificate, be sworn to in the presence of 
the judge of the court, and attested by him. 
Two years later the alien could be naturalized 
in a similar court upon presenting a petition 
setting forth the circumstances of his case. 
His certificate of registry and declaration 
must be given up, canceled, and filed. The 
court must be satisfied, after examination, of 
his identity, of the genuineness of his certifi- 
cates, lack of fraud, residence (five years and 
one year, as before), character, and disposi- 
tion (as before), and that he had not been 
convicted of any felony. These facts were 
to be proved by citizens of the United States, 
whose names, residence, and occupations 
must appear in the record and in the certifi- 
cate. Support of the Constitution must be 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 237 

promised, and the usual renunciation of 
foreign allegiance made. When the court 
was satisfied, it might decree admission to 
citizenship, and direct a certificate to be 
granted under seal of the court, signed by- 
judge and clerk. The certificate must con- 
tain a copy of the registry with full descrip- 
tion and particulars, and both the record and 
the certificates must show that all require- 
ments of the law had been met. No admis- 
sion could take place except by express order 
of the court declared in the records. 

Any person who had been registered while 
under sixteen as a part of the family of an alien, 
and had continued his residence the required 
time, might be naturalized according to law 
without producing a certificate of registry 
or a previous declaration of intention. 

No second certificate could be granted 
without proof of loss of the first by accident, 
and two months' public advertising for it, and 
then only to the party, or to his legal repre- 
sentative if dead. 

Proper certificates of two years' war-time 
service by an able-bodied male person at least 
seventeen years of age at enlistment should 
be evidence authorizing naturalization on 
taking the oath of allegiance and making the 
required renunciations. No decree of natural- 



238 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

ization could be made within months of 

any general election in the state or district, 
and no rights were conferred outside of the 
state or district for months after naturali- 
zation. No alien enemy could be naturalized. 
No proof should be admitted or received of 
any facts made a matter of record, except the 
certificate of the record. Any attempted 
fraud by any person in naturalization was 
made a high misdemeanor. The court having 
decreed a naturalization could re-examine the 
same at any time within five years, upon pe- 
tition of any citizens, or upon its own mo- 
tion; and if fraud, wilful irregularity, or gross 
negligence appeared, it must rescind and re- 
verse the decree, and declare the naturaliza- 
tion to be utterly null and void. Any alien 
already in the United States who should at 
any time within six months prove five years' 
residence within the United States, and that 
he was in all other respects, except as to a 
certificate of registry, entitled to naturali- 
zation under the new act, could be admitted 
to citizenship by a decree of the court. All 
conflicting provisions of former laws were 
repealed. 25 

In the House a motion was "laid over" that 
sought the institution of an inquiry as to the 

25 (458) Senate Documents, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second 
Session, No. 173, 198. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 239 

expediency of a law to authorize taking the 
testimony of absent witnesses. The plan 
suggested was for the court, upon the motion 
of an applicant, to issue a commission author- 
izing any justice of the peace or clerk of a 
court where the witnesses resided to take 
their testimony in writing, certify to it, and 
send it to be used as competent evidence to 
secure the applicant the benefit of the natu- 
ralization law. While this plan would doubt- 
less have been very serviceable to many 
honest applicants, the abundant enlargement 
of the opportunity for fraud that it would 
have made must have prevented its accept- 
ance, even at a time when the necessity for 
guarding the franchise was less prominently 
in the public mind, and when political wisdom 
could be found in legislating in the interest 
of aliens. 26 

A motion for a similar inquiry as to a law 
to require that the name of every emigrant 
should be registered at the custom-house, 
and a certificate of such registration be the 
indispensable proof of the term of his resi- 
dence in the United States; also as to a law 
that the right of suffrage should not be 
granted until two years after naturalization; 
and as to any other amendments necessary 

26 (462) House Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 96; December 17, 1844. 



240 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

for the pervention of frauds and the preser- 
vation of the purity of the elective franchise, 
was laid over under the rules, on notice of 
debate. 27 Its proposal that Congress should 
legislate to control the right of suffrage is 
rather remarkable for this period. 

The House Judiciary Committee report- 
ed 28 on the petitions referred to it, and pre- 
sented a bill to establish a uniform rule of 
naturalization, and to repeal all other acts or 
parts of acts on that subject. The report first 
analyzed all former acts, both existing and 
obsolete. It said that the laws were liberal, 
simple, and easily understood, and had under- 
gone no change for seventeen years. They 
might require condensation for convenience 
and perspicuity, and some amendments to 
prevent imposition and fraud. But the peti- 
tioners asked for a radical change in the 
residence requirement, which the committee 
supposed, in the words of Jefferson, "would 
in effect operate as a denial of the privilege 
altogether." Such a restriction would con- 
flict with the policy of each and all the states 
in their early settlement, and control the for- 
mer liberal policy of the federal government. 
The right to emigrate, and the privilege of 

27 Congressional Globe, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 64; December 23, 1844. 

28 January 31, 1845. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 241 

being naturalized under provisions the least 
onerous and restrictive, were everywhere 
recognized in state laws and constitutions. 
The principle involved, the right to renounce 
an allegiance by birth and not by choice, was 
acknowledged from the constitution of New 
Hampshire to that of Louisiana. The Dec- 
laration of Independence had complained of 
England that she "obstructed the laws of 
naturalization of foreigners." The constitu- 
tional clause for naturalization met with not 
the slightest objection either in forming or 
adopting the Constitution. The secretary of 
state reported of foreign governments that 
they all used aliens in war against their na- 
tive country, even when not regularly natu- 
ralized, and that they allowed their own sub- 
jects to emigrate. 

But why multiply references and examples in support 
of the principle and right of emigration and expatriation, 
in contradistinction to the doctrine of native allegiance, and 
the disavowal of naturalization — a doctrine which belongs 
to those dark and gloomy periods when conquest fettered 
the persons, and superstition weighed down the minds of 
men. 

Greece, Rome, and modern France were 
better models. The French constitution of 
1791 had made the single condition of natural- 
ization : "those who — being born out of the 
kingdom, of foreign parents — reside in 



242 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

France, become French citizens after five 
years' continued residence in the kingdom/' 
The seven- and nine-year periods for office for 
foreigners, in the Constitution, were not in 
harmony with this twenty-one-year period, by 
which thirty years were required after the 
declaration of intention. The petitioners 
seemed to suppose that increase of population 
was the only object of naturalization laws. It 
was one object, but not the only one. The 
committee would say: "It was to assert the 
great principle of expatriation, and the right 
of every man to leave the country of his birth 
for the one of his choice." Not merely the 
new states, but many of the old ones also, 
would gladly add to their strength and wealth 
by an increase of their numbers. If frauds 
were practiced, guard against them by 
amendments. Were they practiced only or 
chiefly by the naturalized, or also by natives? 
The committee thought it advisable to col- 
lect all naturalization provisions into one gen- 
eral law, and believed that the bill it pre- 
sented, if adopted, would carry out the in- 
junctions of the Constitution, preserve the 
rights of aliens, and guard against all just 
grounds of abuse and complaint. 29 

The bill that the committee presented con- 

29 (468) House Reports of Committees, Twenty-eighth Congress, 
Second Session, No. 87. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 243 

tained ten sections. It was chiefly a re-enact- 
ment of the existing law, with some addition- 
al provisions to remedy minor defects, to 
make fraudulent practices more difficult, and 
to secure the punishment of fraud. Any alien 
free white was to be admitted a citizen of 
the United States in the mode and on the 
conditions given, and not otherwise. He 
must declare on oath in open court before a 
supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of 
a state or territory, or a circuit or district 
court of the United States, at least two years 
before his admission, his intention to become 
a citizen, and to renounce his foreign alle- 
giance. Two years later, and after five years' 
residence in the United States, he might be 
admitted a citizen, provided he took an oath 
that he would support the Constitution and 
did renounce any other allegiance and any 
title; exhibited a certificate of his declaration 
of intention, and took an oath that he was 
the person named therein; furnished two wit- 
nesses, citizens, who should swear that they 
were well acquainted with him and believed 
him to be the person named in the certificate, 
and that he had resided five years in the 
United States and one year in that state; and 
proved that he was of good moral character, 
attached to the principles of the Constitu- 



244 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

tion, and well disposed to the good order 
and happiness of the country. The full par- 
ticulars of his certificate, residence, names of 
witnesses, etc., must be stated in the record. 
Otherwise it should not be competent for any 
court to grant a certificate of naturalization 
or pronounce a judgment of naturalization, 
nor should the person be deemed a citizen of 
the United States. 

Any minor living in the United States for 
two years before he was twenty-one, and 
thereafter, might, after becoming twenty-one 
and after five years of residence, be admitted 
without the previous declaration of intention, 
provided that he made the declaration at the 
time of his admission, and declared and 
proved that it had been for three years his 
bona fide intention to become a citizen, and 
complied with all the other requirements. 
When any alien died after having declared 
his intention, his widow and children, dwell- 
ing in the United States, should be considered 
citizens upon taking the oath and renouncing 
their former allegiance. Minor children of 
naturalized citizens dwelling in the United 
States should be considered citizens. The 
children of free white citizens, born out of 
the United States during a temporary absence 
of their parents, should be deemed native citi- 
zens. 



AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM 245 

Every court of record of any state, having 
common law jurisdiction and a seal and clerk, 
should be considered a district court within 
the meaning of the act. Any declaration be- 
fore the passage of the act made bona fide 
before the clerk of an authorized court should 
be held as valid as if made before the court. 
Clerks of courts should grant certificates of 
declaration, and receive a fee of one dollar 
each for granting and recording them ; also 
a fee of two dollars for a naturalization certifi- 
cate to be paid before the naturalization was 
allowed. Fraudulent application or naturali- 
zation was to be a high misdemeanor, and be 
punished by a fine of not more than one 
thousand dollars, or by imprisonment of not 
more than six months, or by both. Anyone 
knowingly aiding in the fraud was liable to 
one-half of the specified penalties. A fraudu- 
lent naturalization was to be void. It should 
be the duty of a district attorney learning of 
fraud to file an information; scire facias 
should then issue to show why the naturali- 
zation should not be null; and if it was shown 
by confession, default, or jury trial that the 
naturalization had been procured by fraud, 
it was to be the duty of the court to adjudge 
it to be null and void. Knowingly and wil- 
fully using or permitting the use of any cer- 



246 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

tificate of declaration or of naturalization, ex- 
cept for the proper person and lawfully, 
should be a misdemeanor, liable to one-half 
of the before-mentioned penalties. All other 
acts and parts of acts respecting naturaliza- 
tion were to be repealed. 30 This bill was re- 
ferred, after two readings, to the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, and had not come up for considera- 
tion when the session and the Congress ended 
a month later. 

30 Congressional Globe, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, Appendix, 130; January 31, 1S45. 



CHAPTER XIII 

THE PERIOD OF AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERI- 
CANISM (CONTINUED) 

In July, 1845, a Native American national 
convention was hold at Philadelphia, with 
delegates present from nine states. It set 
forth its principles in a number of resolu- 
tions, formally took the name "Native Ameri- 
cans," and sent out an address called "The 
Second Declaration of Independence." The 
resolutions declared that they could give 
their suffrages only to persons born on the 
soil, and favored twenty-one years' residence 
for foreigners thereafter naturalized. They 
would kindly receive persons who came to 
America, and give them every privilege ex- 
cept office and suffrage. 

Archer, during the next session of the 
Senate, presented thirty memorials for 
"twenty-one years" legislation. Three- 
fourths of them were from Pennsylvania. 
They were referred, and no other action was 
taken on the subject. 

In the House the naturalization question 
attained much greater prominence. A series 
oi resolutions o\ the Massachusetts Legis- 
247 



248 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

lature was presented early in the session, and 
the question of its reference brought on a 
prolonged debate. 31 According to the reso- 
lutions, experience had clearly shown that 
the naturalization laws were loose and defect- 
ive, affording opportunity for gross frauds, 
destructive to the rights and morals of the 
citizens and the stability of their institutions. 
The rights, interests, and morals of the 
people demanded an immediate and thorough 
revision of the naturalization laws. The legis- 
lature regarded it as the imperative duty of 
Congress so to amend those laws. While a 
liberal and just policy should be adopted 
toward foreigners who were in the country 
or might come there, the rights and privileges 
of their own countrymen should be kept in- 
violate and the ballot box be permanently 
guarded against improper influence. The 
solid Whig delegation of nine members that 
Massachusetts had in the House, and her sen- 
ators, were especially requested to use their 
utmost exertions forthwith to procure 
amendments in accord with the views ex- 
pressed. 32 

Levin, for some time thereafter a striking 
Native American figure in House or Senate, ob- 

31 This debate began December 15, and was continued on 
December 17, 18, 29, and 30. 

32 House Journal, Twenty-ninth Congress, First Session, 96. 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 249 

jected to referring the bill to the Judiciary Com- 
mittee on the ground of established usage or 
privilege of the House, which (he said) se- 
cured to a measure full and fair discussion on 
its merits from a committee that was not pre- 
judiced against its main principle. The doc- 
trine was clearly laid down that those opposed 
to the main principle of a bill were not to 
be appointed its judges. Reference to a com- 
mittee known to be hostile was tantamount 
to a rejection, and that was prejudgment that 
would suit a sultan. The eyes of the nation 
were turned on the House. The people loved 
this child of theirs, "monster" as it had been 
called. They expected consideration for it, 
and Congress could not grant a smaller act of 
justice. Giddings inquired whether Levin 
had not always voted at that session to 
smother petitions against slavery of eighty 
thousand native-born Americans. Brodhead 
questioned where there was evidence of any 
disposition on the part of the Judiciary Com- 
mittee to smother the matter. There was 
none on which to found so offensive an impu- 
tation. Why let the American party select 
a committee? Must the House dignify by a 
report of a select committee what but six out 
of two hundred and twenty-three representa- 
tives of the whole American people professed 



250 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

to advocate? So very small a minority must 
be treated as other minorities were treated. 
How was it to be expected that the majority 
would endorse the opposing view? He called 
for the previous question to save time from 
useless discussion, but withdrew it at the re- 
quest of Rathbun, chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. 

Rathbun favored granting the request of 
Levin. If the memorial was sent to his com- 
mittee, he should move to discharge it at 
the first meeting. Let the few there have the 
nursing of this new and original thought of 
theirs as to naturalization, and present the 
bantling when sufficiently grown. Let them 
show that the previous course of the nation 
was all wrong, and that a foreigner should 
not vote until the infant born on the day of 
his arrival voted at his side. Maclay re- 
gretted Rathbun's willingness. Two years 
before he would have granted willingly the 
reference asked, on account of the promi- 
nence in the public discussions that the subject 
seemed to occupy. There was a great change 
since, and the public judgment had been pro- 
nounced. The miserable Native American 
movement no longer excited the regard of 
an intelligent community. It never had any 
strength except in large cities, and could not 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 251 

stand country atmosphere. 33 Let the Judi- 
ciary Committee examine the subject patient- 
ly, and report showing the sheer absurdity of 
any change in the system that had prevailed 
from the foundation of the government and 
was the cause of so large a part of the coun- 
try's prosperity. McDowell was utterly op- 
posed to twenty-one years, but had no objec- 
tion to revision for the more effectual pro- 
tection of the ballot box. But if the object 
was to get up political excitement in the 
House, and send out nourishment to a party 
fast dwindling into insignificance, he would 
vote to table the memorial. Payne (Ala.) be- 
lieved the present movement was one to get 
up a faction in the House such as the Anti- 
Mason and Abolition factions, and hoped for 
a merited rebuke for it. Yancey (Ala.) be- 
lieved it ever the practice to refer a matter 
to its friends, and favored a special commit- 
tee to meet the matter fairly. 

Others thought that, though the Native 
Americans were few and feeble, yet they were 
entitled to courtesy and a fair hearing. 
There was not a native American on the Ju- 

83 Later, another speaker, either John W. Davis (Ind.) or 
Jefferson Davis, declared that the Native American party was gen- 
erated by the corruption of the great cities, and could not live 
in the pure atmosphere of the country — that nobody had ever 
heard of a meeting of Native Americans in a country schoolhouse. 
Native Americans were but a wing of the Whigs. Open doors 
to immigration was the true policy of the government. 



252 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

diciary Committee, and there could not be 
even a minority report from it. What harm 
could a select committee do — there had been 
a bill and a report at the last session, but no 
action? These measures marked the in- 
cipient stage of making a great alien class. 
The Native American party had its birth in a 
storm — one of the most wretched and dis- 
graceful scenes ever seen in Philadelphia — ■ 
and was everywhere declared to be seeking 
the offices that were held by the foreign-born. 
The question was entitled to no more respect 
than Abolition. 34 The attempt to divert the 
reference was an acknowledgment that they 
were seeking to throw firebrands, and to send 
out an inflammatory report to make converts 
for Native Americanism. 

Levin replied that so strong and attractive 
a principle as that of the Native Americans 
yet promised a majority of the House and 
the country. In fifteen years the native-born 
would be in a minority. Americans were 
shot down in Philadelphia on the plea that 
they were on the Irish quarter, and that no 
Americans were allowed there. They were 
charged falsely with being "burners of 
churches." They had saved a church at the 
risk of their lives, and had destroyed none. 
They were neither bigots nor fanatics. 

34 This was from Chipman, a Democrat from Michigan. 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 253 

Bayly (Va.) regarded the resolutions as a 
bold attempt to interfere with the ac- 
knowledged rights of states. The general 
government had no jurisdiction in the matter 
and could not control suffrage. They could 
do no more than to deprive the foreigner of 
his right to the habeas corpus, to hold prop- 
erty, and other rights pertaining to citizen- 
ship. His right to suffrage was exclusively 
under the jurisdiction of the states. The 
measure proposed would deter men of prop- 
erty and character from coming, but would 
hardly keep out paupers. He could not con- 
sent to take a great constitutional question 
from the law committee and refer it to a special 
committee. 

Bayly's constitutional argument ignored 
the important fact that the states had, very 
generally and largely as a matter of course, 
made United States citizenship a qualification 
for suffrage, and that perhaps in most of them 
a change of opinion as to their legal right 
would be necessary before that requirement 
could be removed. It followed that a federa! 
law hindering naturalization would act effect- 
ively to deprive the majority of foreigners 
of their rights to the suffrage. To be sure, 
some states were then asserting, and perhaps 
all would today acknowledge, their legal 



254 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

power to overcome this difficulty; but most 
states then thought it to be either illegal or 
unwise to take such action. So long and so 
far as this opinion prevailed, Congress had 
actual control of the situation. A remarkable 
fact to notice, also, is that Bayly did not claim 
for the states any control over the right to 
hold property. I think that the explanation 
of this must be found in the federal owner- 
ship and control of the sale of the public 
lands, and the importance assumed by the 
public lands among the possible property 
holdings of aliens. In other words, the prop- 
erty right then meant to an alien the right to 
buy public lands. 

Stephen A. Douglas said that naturaliza- 
tion conferred the right of citizenship, which 
included the rights of protection, access to 
the courts in time of war, holding real estate, 
inheritance, and various other rights. The 
federal convention had discussed the matter 
of fixing uniform rules of voting, and aban- 
doned it. The differences were too many and 
too great to reconcile or remove, and it be- 
came necessary to split or compromise. The 
right of each state to qualify voters had 
never been questioned. 35 The states defied and 

35 A very inadequate statement. An absolute right, not sub- 
ject to the limitations of the naturalization laws, had been denied 
often in Congress and elsewhere. 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 255 

derided the attempts of the Native Americans 
to control the suffrage by naturalization. The 
Judiciary Committee of the last Congress had 
offered a bill to remedy frauds. Also there 
was now a different committee. If there had 
been any fault before, it was that of Congress 
rather than of the committee. 

In closing the debate, two members de- 
fended the Whig party from responsibility 
for Native Americanism. It had arisen in 
Democratic districts in the outskirts of Phila- 
delphia. Democratic loss of the Irish vote 
had started it. The party was of no practical 
use to anybody but Democrats. Whig Ohio 
had denounced it in resolutions of the legis- 
lature. That it had sprung from the Demo- 
cratic party as its source could be demon- 
strated. The debate was ended only with the 
previous question. The resolutions were 
sent to the Judiciary Committee December 
30, 1845. 36 

The committee presented an emphatic re- 
port on the 10th of February. They had 
waited some weeks for proofs of the state- 
ments in the resolutions, but none had been 
offered them. The time of the resolutions had 
been least favorable for an unprejudiced ex- 
amination of the truth of the matters, owing 

sa Congressional Globe, Twenty-ninth Congress, First Session, 
67-74, 77-82, 105-7, 1 13-18. 



256 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

to the great excitement in the election of 1844. 
Complaint had naturally followed defeat. It 
was difficult to perceive dangers from the 
naturalization laws or from the votes of 
naturalized persons. The committee under- 
stood the resolutions to complain only of 
looseness of the laws and opportunity for 
fraud upon them. The judge and the clerk 
were in this, the same as in their other duties, 
under a legal and moral responsibility to ad- 
minister the laws honestly and justly. A vio- 
lation of this duty was a high crime. Wit- 
nesses were all liable for perjury. The com- 
mittee was unable to devise any greater 
penalties for perjury in harmony with the 
humane spirit of the age. It would be re- 
garded as barbarous and inhumane to forfeit 
life. They were constrained to believe that 
the naturalization laws were sufficiently 
guarded and sufficiently stringent. Some 
thought that the period of probation should 
be twenty-one years. The committee thought 
differently and were sustained by experience. 
The longer the probation, the greater was 
the inducement to fraud. It was impolitic to 
perpetuate the character of alien longer than 
was absolutely necessary. If all foreigners 
who had come for twenty years were still 
aliens, and excluded from all rights in soil and 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 257 

government, consider the danger, especially 
in case of war with England. Her subjects, 
embittered and denied rights, could not aid 
the United States. Nor could or would the 
United States protect aliens. It was wise and 
prudent to Americanize the whole class as 
speedily as possible. The reasons for liberal 
naturalization laws still existed in all their 
force. They ought not to be disregarded, 
nor ought any disadvantageous or repulsive 
restrictions to be added to the laws. When 
the population became dense, labor cheap, 
employment scarce, then, and not till then, 
would it be necessary to inquire as to a 
change. The states controlled suffrage, and 
had the remedy for evils in themselves. They 
could, but ought not to, proscribe naturalized 
citizens. The committee had no knowledge 
of frauds nor evidence concerning them. 
They would not look among ignorant aliens 
for perpetrators of frauds. These might be 
instruments in the hands of unprincipled citi- 
zens. They recommended a resolution: that 
no alteration of the naturalization laws is 
necessary for the preservation of rights, in- 
terests, and morals of the people, or for the 
guarding of the ballot box from every im- 
proper influence. 37 

37 (489) House Reports of Committees, Twenty-ninth Congress, 
First Session, No. 231. 



258 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Two native Americans, Levin and Camp- 
bell (N. Y.), replied later to some of the 
points in the report. Levin's speech was 
made in connection with a motion of his to 
amend a bill for raising a regiment of mount- 
ed riflemen by providing that the officers and 
soldiers should all be Americans by birth. 
He referred to what he called the effort to 
make it appear that the states possessed the 
power to create citizens of the United States. 
The Judiciary Committee's report had re- 
ferred them to state laws for every right, 
civil and political, that an alien could possess. 
In fact, the federal system was purely politi- 
cal, and naturalization must confer rights 
purely political — suffrage and office-holding. 
The Constitution gave states the unquestion- 
able right to decide on what terms American 
citizens could vote. But if they could grant 
to aliens suffrage for presidential electors, 
they could also grant eligibility to the presi- 
dency to aliens. No probation would be 
necessary if naturalization were designed only 
to confer rights relative to property, or other 
civil and personal rights of residents of states. 
If the states controlled the suffrage, and did 
not discriminate between aliens and citizens, 
no certificate of naturalization would be 
necessary, no record of alienage could be 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 259 

traced, and the functions of government 
would come entirely within the power of 
foreigners, in flagrant violation of the Consti- 
tution. Changes in the period of probation 
showed conclusively that the great and fun- 
damental right of naturalization was suffrage, 
and suffrage only. Five or fourteen years' 
residence, knowledge, good character, were 
not required to hold property, fight, or act in 
civil relations. The very idea of probation 
applied to the ballot box, and the practice, ex- 
cept in Illinois and Michigan, sustained this 
view. The absurdity of the report on that 
point was self-evident. It was absurd to 
prove the non-existence of a law by its vio- 
lation. If the states could admit aliens to 
vote, the Constitution was a dead letter. If, 
as they were told, the denial of naturaliza- 
tion and the suffrage would create discontent, 
cabal and insurrection, they should exclude 
foreigners totally. In twenty-one years all 
distinct interests, jealousy, and rivalry would 
cease, and the foreign party would be ex- 
tinguished. No other country on the globe 
admitted the foreigner, or even its own peo- 
ple, to rights of sovereignty. 38 

Campbell declared that alien voting in 
Michigan and Illinois was a plain violation of 

88 Congressional Globe, Twenty-ninth Congress, First Session, 
605. 



260 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

the spirit of the Constitution. The first con- 
stitution of New York (1777) gave the state 
power to pass general laws for naturaliza- 
tion, but the state never passed any such law, 
and passed only one special act naturalizing 
by name about one hundred persons. They 
had not thought it was wise to open wide the 
door to citizenship. 39 

The real question in dispute between 
Campbell and the committee was as to 
whether in making the Constitution a distinct 
federal citizenship was established, and the 
various state citizenships merged into it, to 
the extent at least of all of their political 
rights. In that case, unquestionably, the 
right of suffrage must be derived from this 
new citizenship, and could never be extended 
beyond it while the Constitution, in letter 
or in interpretation, remained unchanged 
and retained its controlling force. 

In this view of the case, the federal citizen- 
ship from which suffrage derived attached to 
former state citizens by the adoption of the 
Constitution. Thereafter it could be gained 
only by birth or by naturalization. Birth any- 
where within the United States wrought a 
uniform result in this respect, and the effect 
of birth abroad would be regulated by the 

39 Loc. cit., 619. 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 261 

federal naturalization laws. The power of 
naturalization was confided wholly to the 
general government. Thus the states no 
longer had anything to say as to who became 
citizens, while they had full control of the 
terms on which citizens could vote, subject 
only to the constitutional requirement that 
the citizens of each state have the privileges 
of citizens in the several states. 

By the process described the idea of state 
citizenship must have lost so much of its con- 
tent as to change its character or destroy it 
entirely. Two courses would remain by 
which the idea might survive in a limited 
sense. It might be applied to distinguish 
those federal citizens who resided in the state 
from other federal citizens, leaving all other 
persons in the state to be regarded as aliens 
from every point of view. In this case there 
would scarcely be contrast enough to support 
a very definite idea of two citizenships. Or its 
application might be extended to include un- 
naturalized foreigners in the exercise of cer- 
tain rights secured to them through residence 
in the state, in which case the content of the 
idea would be reduced to the sum of those 
alien rights. State pride could be depended 
upon to prevent state citizenship from being 
reduced to mean so little, and the alter- 



262 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

native would involve identifying it with fed- 
eral citizenship. 

But if the federal citizenship did not mo- 
nopolize the suffrage power, and the states 
retained the right to make voters, of any 
grade at all, from aliens, the presumption 
would be easy and natural that they were 
not excluded from granting to aliens the suf- 
frage for members of the lower house of the 
legislature. With that granted, nothing could 
prevent the entire federal suffrage from be- 
ing given at the will of the state. That would 
give to state citizenship ample content, and 
the distinction between it and federal citizen- 
ship would be forced into prominence. 

The constitutional provisions are that 
members of the House of Representatives 
shall be chosen "by the People of the several 
States," having "the Qualifications requisite 
for Electors of the most numerous Branch of 
the State Legislature;" and "Each State shall ap- 
point in such manner as the Legislature thereof 
may direct, a Number of presidential Elec- 
tors." The only restrictions are in the one 
case that the "State shall appoint," and in 
the other that elections shall be by "the Peo- 
ple of the several States." If these terms 
were construed abstractly in the light of 
strong notions of allegiance, or of the con- 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 263 

trast between aliens and citizens, they would 
be found to warrant Campbell's conclusions; 
but, when considered practically in a new 
country, where aliens were numerous or set- 
tlers were greatly desired, and where ideas of 
individual liberty had dethroned perpetual al- 
legiance, foreigners would clearly be "People 
of the several States." Perhaps nothing short 
of an explicit exclusion, such as was made in 
regard to the presidency, could have kept 
them from the suffrage wherever the terms 
of naturalization were thought to be harsh. 

Levin spoke in the next Congress on a bill 
intended to prevent the crowded condition 
of emigrant ships. He was opposed to the 
whole system of importing voters, and at- 
tributed it to party policy intended to weaken 
the Native American party. He should move 
to amend the title to, "A bill to accommodate 
the paupers and criminals of Europe in their 
migrations to the United States." The nat- 
uralization laws were obsolete in principle, 
object, and tendency, and most destructive in 
practice. They had been designed to adopt 
a class of aliens qualified by morals, manners, 
and education to aid in expanding the country 
and consolidating the new government. But 
Europe no longer drove out her valuable 
and gifted sons — instead of them she was 



264 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

sending over famine victims. He would feed 
them, but not rally to the polls that living 
mass of moral putrescence and pitiable igno- 
rance. When the Native American vote 
equaled the foreign vote, the question would 
be settled. 40 

The question of pauper and criminal immi- 
grants continued to be agitated throughout 
the Native American and Know-Nothing 
periods, and has begun to be solved only in 
much more recent times. Memorials brought 
the subject before both House and Senate in 
the spring of 1847. The Senate at length 
discharged its committee from consideration 
of it, but printed information from the sec- 
retary of state showed shipments of these 
classes from Switzerland and Germany, and 
probably of paupers from Ireland. 41 A bill 
was introduced in the House to prevent the 
importation of these classes, but it came to 
naught. In 1850 the New Orleans Board of 
Health petitioned Congress to tax alien passen- 
gers arriving in the United States. In response 
to this petition, the House Judiciary Commit- 
tee reported a bill for such a tax, the pro- 

40 Congressional Globe, Twenty-ninth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, Appendix, 385. 

41 (492) Senate Journal, Twenty-ninth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 232; (496) House Journal, 468; (499) House Documents, 
Twenty-ninth Congress, Second Session, No. 54. 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 265 

ceeds to go to authorized state officers for 
eleemosynary purposes. 42 

In 1851-52 a number of petitions were re- 
ferred in both houses, and again the Senate 
committee was discharged from considering 
them further. 43 In 1855 a resolution of the 
Rhode Island Legislature called for a law to 
prohibit the introduction of foreign paupers 
and criminals. It was sent to the governors 
of the other states for presentation to their 
legislatures as well as to Congress. 44 The 
Senate debated a resolution of inquiry calling 
upon the president for information as to the 
transportation of foreign convicts and pau- 
pers into the United States, and the agency 
of governments and municipal authorities 
therein ; the voluntary immigration -of those 
classes into the United States; and the leg- 
islation necessary. Cooper (Pa.), who in- 
troduced the resolution, said that friendly 
nations had no right to make of the United 
States a penal colony; yet there was scarcely 
an emigrant ship not freighted partly with 

* 2 (492) Senate Journal, Twenty-ninth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion,* 158, 2:6; (495) Senate Documents, Twenty-ninth Congress, 
Second Session, No. 161. 

iS (610) Senate Journal, Thirty-second Congress, First Session, 
42, 93, 117, 219, 225, 243, 274, 420, 436; (632) House Journal, 
Thirty-second Congress, First Session, 103, 237, 280, 292, 327, 385. 

** (745) Senate Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 
293; (.772) Senate Miscellaneous Documents, Thirty-third Congress, 
Second Session, No. 19. 



266 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

that kind of cargo. The evil had lately 
alarmingly increased. One vessel in New 
York had recently landed one hundred and 
fifty paupers, and fifteen or sixteen convicts 
wearing chains. The Sardinian government 
had recently shipped thirty-four convicted 
criminals. Some years before two hundred 
and sixty Hessian convicts, a ship-load, came 
to Baltimore with manacles and fetters still 
on hands and feet. The mayor detained them 
and wrote the secretary of state, who replied 
that there was no law to prevent their land j 
ing. He gave figures to show that the for- 
eign-born paupers in the United States in 
1850 were over two thousand more than the 
paupers of native birth. 

Brodhead replied that it was easier to make 
a speech than to introduce a bill to meet the 
difficulty that would be conformable to the 
Constitution. Cooper had not told the rem- 
edy. 45 The states had authority and had 
acted. New York taxed every foreigner, and 
exacted security from ship-owners that immi- 
grants would not become a charge. Where 
was the jurisdiction in Congress? He was 
opposed to immigration, but did not know 
how to frame a bill not in conflict with state 
authority, state rights, and state jurisdic- 

45 Cooper replied that the resolution showed a practical purpose. 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 267 

tion. 46 A little later, Jones (Tenn.) submitted 
a resolution for consideration, in substance 
as follows : Whereas, The Constitution con- 
fers on Congress the power to establish a 
uniform rule of naturalization, and is silent 
as to the exercise of any power over the sub- 
ject of emigration; and Whereas, The Consti- 
tution declares that the powers not delegated 
to the United States nor prohibited to the 
states are reserved to the states or to the people ; 
Resolved, That Congress has no power to pass 
any law regulating or controlling immigration 
into any states or territories. The power to estab- 
lish necessary rules belongs to the states or to the 
people. Each state may determine for itself 
the evils arising from criminal and pauper im- 
migration, and apply such remedy as its wis- 
dom may suggest or its safety demand. 47 

In the House this question culminated in a 
struggle to secure the passage of a bill re- 
ported by Wentworth from the Committee on 
Commerce. Its opponents succeeded in hold- 
ing it back until the very close of the session 
(March 3, 1855). Appeals were made to 
withdraw it, and charges that it had been 
sprung upon the House, although the bill had 

46 (745) Senate Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 
151, 164; Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 388-91; January 25, 1855. 

4T Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 
783; February 17, 1855. 



268 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

been in print for two months. Breckinridge 
would not discuss the question of the power 
of the general government to prevent states 
from allowing the entrance of such as they 
chose, but, assuming the power, there was a 
cruel exercise of it in the bill. It required 
every human being desirous of coming to the 
United States to procure a consul's certificate 
that he was not lunatic, poor, or blind, and 
had not been for five years. At first it had 
forbidden bringing the blind child in a man's 
family, but it had been patched up with an 
amendment so that it did not apply to a mem- 
ber of a family with sufficient property for 
its support. Any person who was the whole 
support of a family and was old, young, rich, or 
poor was repelled if blind. He wanted no prop- 
erty qualifications for residence in the United 
States. It was anti-American, anti-republi- 
can, and most odious. The provision to ex- 
clude as a pauper a person who had received 
aid within a year might exclude one as worthy 
as the man who had millions. He knew that 
the proscriptive feeling of which he regarded 
the bill as one of the fruits, was popular, and 
was sweeping like a hurricane from one end 
of the country to the other; but it conflicted 
with fundamental principles of the govern- 
ment, and he was willing to oppose it and 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 269 

await the reaction in public sentiment that he 
knew would come. Wentworth had been 
beaten by the Know-Nothing political society, 
and might have introduced that bill to extin- 
guish Know-Nothingism. 

I would rather trust to the next Congress, full of 
Know Nothings, as it is likely to be, to pass a bill upon 
this subject, than to take this bill, patched up and thrust 
upon us at this late period of the session, with a view to 
compromise the question. 

Wentworth replied that the bill was started 
before he had much knowledge of the exist- 
ence of the new ism. His state maintained 
two or three thousand foreign paupers. The 
whole seaboard was calling for the law. The 
Rhode Island Legislature and the New York 
Common Council favored it. The Emigrant 
Society of New York had been urging a much 
more restrictive bill, from which some addi- 
tions to this were taken. The Supreme Court 
had decided that Congress had power to regu- 
late the whole subject, and that the Massa- 
chusetts and New York restriction laws were 
unconstitutional and void; that Congress 
could control the introduction of foreigners, 
and that states had no right to legislate in 
any way to contravene their introduction or 
importation. The case of Gibbons and 
Ogden, and the passenger cases had settled 



270 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

the question. Any necessary legislation must 
come from Congress alone. The passenger 
laws since 1848 had been equally restrictive 
and penal. No property qualification was 
made; for if one were not a pauper, he could 
come without a farthing. To a request to 
state the constitutional clause under which 
power was claimed, he replied that it was 
claimed under a decision of the Supreme 
Court, and that there was no necessity of 
going into the constitutional argument. 
Breckinridge failed in an effort to get the 
floor to offer a substitute, and Hendricks 
again appealed to the House not to attempt 
to pass the bill at that late hour. It was laid 
on the table by a vote of 68 to 53. 48 

The next year 49 the House Committee on 
Foreign Relations reported back a bill to 
prevent the introduction into the United 
States of foreign criminals, paupers, idiots, 
lunatics, insane, and blind persons. In a long 
report the committee discussed the evils to 
be remedied, and asserted that both the gen- 
eral and state governments could do much 
to stay the tide of immigration of that unde- 
sirable population. The states generally had 

48 (709) House Journal, Thirty-third Congress, First Session, 
1802; (776) ibid., Second Session, 137, 139, 574, 582; Congres- 
sional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 158, 167, 174, 
970, 1180-1187. 

48 August 16, 1856. 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 271 

been as much remiss as Congress. Sugges- 
tions were made as to how they could enforce 
a truly American policy on all subjects. The 
bill did not get beyond the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union. 50 

Resolutions on this subject, one of them 
from the legislature of Maine, were before 
different Senate committees in 1857, and in 
the House in 1858; but nothing more impor- 
tant was done with them than the discharge 
of some committees having them in hand. 51 

In February, 1841, the Senate Committee on 
Judiciary reported a bill to declare the rights 
of children of citizens of the United States 
born abroad. The bill was considered and 
passed to third reading, but was then laid on 
the table. 52 In December, 1844, notice was 
given in the House of leave to be asked to in- 
troduce a similar bill. 53 The bill of the House 
Judiciary Committee of 1845, heretofore de- 
scribed, provided that such children should 
be deemed native. 54 

60 (838) House Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session, 
474, 631, (839) 1491; (870) House Reports of Committees, Thirty- 
fourth Congress, First and Second Sessions, 359. 

61 (917) Senate Journal, Thirty-fifth Congress, First Session, 
49, 360, 364, 488; (934) Senate Miscellaneous Documents, Thirty- 
fifth Congress, First Session, No. 12; (940) House Journal, 131, 
197. 

82 (374) Senate Journal, Twenty-sixth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 188, 214; February 17 and 27, 1841. 

83 (462) House Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 104. 

6 * See p. 244. 



272 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Three years later Webster was given 
leave to bring in a bill to extend the benefits 
of the naturalization law to the wives and 
children of citizens. The bill provided that 
all persons then or thereafter born out of the 
limits of the United States, of a father or 
mother being or having been a natural-born 
citizen of the United States, should be en- 
titled to all the rights and privileges of citi- 
zenship; also that every woman married, or 
who should be married, to a citizen of the 
United States, should be deemed and taken to 
be a citizen. Webster explained that the bill 
had a very simple and important object. By 
the law of 1812, except by a violent construc- 
tion of it, children born abroad of Americans 
resident or traveling there, were not to be 
deemed citizens. That act said "of parents 
who heretofore have been, or now are, citi- 
zens of the United States," but did not say 
"hereafter shall be." At the time he was 
speaking parents might be forty-six years old 
who were not born in 1802, and their children 
born abroad were excluded from citizenship 
by necessary construction of the act. Story, 
Kent, and others thought the act was very 
vaguely drawn. Though it was intended to 
apply to naturalized citizens, it could not be 
construed to do so. To remedy that, making 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 273 

the act apply to all citizens, was the main 
provision of the bill. The Judiciary Commit- 
tee reported an amendment, that Webster 
indorsed as simplifying the measure. It then 
provided that the children of citizens of the 
United States, born out of the United States, 
should be considered as citizens, provided 
that the rights of citizenship should not de- 
scend to persons whose fathers never had 
been residents in the United States. By sec. 
2 every woman married already or thereafter 
to a citizen of the United States, and continu- 
ing to reside in the United States, should be 
deemed and taken to be a citizen. The bill 
did not get out of the committee of the 
whole. 55 An item in Niles Register, March 30, 
1844, was as follows: 

Alien females. An alien wife should be naturalised. 
It was decided by Judge Kent in the New York circuit 
court, on Saturday, that a wife, born abroad, and not 
naturalized, could not inherit property devised to her by a 
husband. 56 

A bill similar to that of Webster passed two 
readings at the first session of the following 
Congress, and was read early in the second 
session, but has no further record; 57 and a 

55 (502) Senate Journal, Thirtieth Congress, First Session, 382, 
390; Congressional Globe, Thirtieth Congress, First Session, 827, 
834, 844; June 12, 13, 15, 1848. 

56 Niles Register, LXVI, 80. 

57 (566) House Journal, Thirty-first Congress, First Session, 
284, 523; Congressional Globe, Thirty-first Congress, First Session, 
24. 



274 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Senate bill with the same object was amended 
by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1852. 
At length the Thirty-third Congress suc- 
ceeded in legislating upon these subjects by 
devoting to them some time at both sessions. 
The House and the Senate Judiciary Commit- 
tees were each instructed, on the same day, 58 
to inquire as to any necessary legislation to 
secure the rights of citizenship to children of 
American citizens born abroad. Seward sub- 
mitted the resolution in the Senate. The 
House resolution had directed a report by bill 
or otherwise, at as early a day as possible. 
A bill was reported on January 13, and passed 
the same day. 59 Cutting explained for the 
committee that it was one eminently neces- 
sary to correct a lamentable defect in the law, 
and deserved immediate action. It provided 
that all persons born out of the United States, 
whose fathers 60 were citizens of the United 
States, should be deemed citizens, provided 
that the rights of citizenship should not de- 
scend to children whose fathers never resided 
in the United States. Any woman, not a citi- 
zen, when married to a citizen should be 
deemed a citizen. The act of 1790 had pro- 

68 December 20, 1853. 

59 (709) House Journal, Thirty-third Congress, First Session, 
117, 199. 

00 Webster's bill had said "fathers or mothers." 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 275 

vided for such children, but that of 1802 had 
left them aliens if their parents were born 
after 1802. The difficulty did not manifest 
itself for nearly fifty years; but was noticed 
some ten or twelve years before. The Sen- 
ate bill of 1841 seemed to have been forgotten. 
A later House bill unfortunately went to the 
receptacle of all things that were to be lost — 
the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union. If this went there, 
the chances were against its being reached. 
The woman section was taken, nearly in exact 
words, from the English act of 1844. There 
could be no objection to it, because women 
possessed no political rights. There was no 
good reason for putting women to the pro- 
bationary term, and the trouble and expense 
of naturalization. Being a citizen, she would 
train her children properly. New York had 
passed special acts for five or six years past to 
guard against escheat of property that should 
descend to certain children born abroad, but 
the state could not regulate their political 
rights. An effort to refer this bill to the com- 
mittee of the whole, in the interest of other 
desired amendments to the naturalization 
law, failed. 61 

In the Senate petitions against its passage 

61 Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, First Session, 
169; January 13, 1854. 



276 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

without amendment were received, 62 and 
Seward soon after presented other petitions 
against the passage of the bill. 63 Apparently 
it was the second section, providing that an 
alien woman, when married to a citizen, 
should become a citizen, that had prevented 
action on the subject before, and that caused 
the opposition of the petitioners. The Sen- 
ate Judiciary Committee recommended that 
this section be struck out. Nearly a year 
later, Bayard explained that the committee 
had revised its opinion, and he was in- 
structed by it to propose, instead of its for- 
mer amendment, to insert after "woman" the 
words "who might be lawfully naturalized 
under existing laws." He said that it was 
considered both necessary and proper that the 
wife should not become a citizen unless she 
could be naturalized under existing laws. 64 
The bill passed with this amendment, and the 
House accepted it after placing "lawfully" 
before instead of after "be." 65 

The amendment would prevent the citizen- 
ship of negro, Indian, or Chinese women. It 

62 One of these was from "Horatio Seymour and others." 

63 (689) Senate Journal, Thirty-third Congress, First Session, 
53, 119, 130, 170. 

64 Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 
92; December 20, 1854. 

65 Ibid., 632. 



NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 277 

seems to require moral character and attach- 
ment to the principles of the Constitution. 
Perhaps it is an open question whether five 
years' residence is also required by it. The 
bill became a law on February 10, 1855. 



CHAPTER XIV 
THE KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 

Returning to the agitation for twenty-one 
years' residence as a prerequisite to naturali- 
zation, note at the outset that petitions do 
not assume the importance henceforth that 
they did in the earlier Native American move- 
ment. Party lines are more tightly drawn, 
and there is little use of asking political oppo- 
nents for votes in Congress. 

On January 23, 1850, Levin gave notice of 
a bill for the protection of the ballot box by 
an extension of the naturalization law to 
twenty-one years and by a capitation tax. 1 
This was perhaps the last act in the old agi- 
tation. The new began at the opening of the 
second session of the Thirty-third Congress 
in December, 1854, when Taylor (Tenn.) in 
the House, and Adams (Miss.) in the Senate, 
gave notice of bills, the one to repeal or modi- 
fy the naturalization laws, and the other to 
amend the Naturalization Act of 1802. Tay- 
lor's bill was introduced by unanimous con- 
sent, but did not get out of the hands of the 
Judiciary Committee. 2 The Senate bill met 

1 Congressional Globe, Thirty-first Congress, First Session, 219. 

2 (776) House Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 
40, 259- 

278 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 279 

a similar fate, but Adams made a speech upon 
it before it was referred. He explained that 
the twenty-one years' residence to be required 
was entirely prospective. All inhabitants of 
the United States at the time of the passage 
of the bill were to have the benefit of the 
existing law. He gave the growth of the 
population since 1800 as about 33 per cent, 
every ten years. At that rate they would 
number about 101,000,000 by 1900. The 
natives would need the whole country, but im- 
migration was increasing alarmingly. He re- 
ferred to riots and mobs, the recent hanging 
of an American senator in effigy, 3 and the 
formation of the German Progressive Repub- 
lican Party, with one of its objects to abolish 
the sabbath. If five years had been a proper 
time in 1802 for the "then" class of immi- 
grants (only seven thousand a year, and scat- 
tered) to become acquainted with the govern- 
ment, twenty-one years was not too long for 
the class of people coming now, three hun- 
dred and seventy thousand a year, in large 
bands, settling whole neighborhoods and com- 
munities, and keeping their own language. 
He believed that public opinion demanded 
the proposed change, and the safety of the 
government required it. The new party had 

8 Douglas, chairman of the committee on territories, had been 
hanged in effigy by foreigners, called a German mob. 



280 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

had great success in the last election. He 
did not belong to the Know-Nothing organi- 
zation, and had twice advocated similar views 
in the House before its successes were made, 
when he had favored the entire repeal of the 
naturalization laws. He was told that states 
possessed and exercised control over the suf- 
frage. His answer was that the states, having 
conferred the right of naturalization on the 
general government, should, in all good faith 
to the general government and to each other, 
conform the qualifications of voters to the 
laws of naturalization. Many of them had 
done so, and recent changes in public opin- 
ion justified the belief that nearly all would 
conform to the principles of his bill. He was 
not tenacious about twenty-one years, but 
thought it the proper and favorite time. No 
man in the United States could complain of 
injustice by the bill. 4 A petition was received 
from the Rhode Island Legislature, 5 asking, 
among other things, for a new naturalization 
law requiring twenty-one years' continuous 
residence, and that all processes and oaths be 
taken in a United States circuit or district 
court, and before the judge in open court. 

* Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 
15, 24-26. 

6 See p. 265. 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 281 

This was laid on the table by the Senate, 6 and 
referred by the House. 7 

A number of speeches, pro and con, on 
Know-Nothingism were made during this 
session of Congress. N. P. Banks defended 
the right of the Know-Nothings to organize 
secretly. Their object made such organiza- 
tion a popular movement and not a conspir- 
acy. He stated that the ground of their oppo- 
sition to Roman Catholic naturalization was 
that their allegiance was claimed by the pope. 
There had been great growth in immigration, 
and Old World conditions would increase it. 
Chinese immigration to Japan had been lim- 
ited; many Chinese were already in Califor- 
nia. With steamers crossing the Pacific in 
ten or twelve days, who could prophesy its 
outcome? Or who could check it? The Su- 
preme Court had decided that the states could 
not. If they came, they would be admitted. 
Should they be naturalized in five years? An 
organized minority of foreign-born had great 
power, for which there was no remedy except 
that union that was understood to be a chief 
object of the Know-Nothings. A change in 
the naturalization laws would not remedy 

6 (745) Senate Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 
293; (772) Senate Miscellaneous Documents, Thirty-third Congress, 
Second Session, No. 19. 

7 (776) House Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 
423; February 21, 1855. 



282 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

that evil. Yet extending the term of resi- 
dence required, and more stringent execution 
of the laws, might be justified. Whether the 
term should be twenty-one, twelve, or ten 
years he would leave for others to say. 8 

Barry (Miss.) said that the Know-Nothing 
purposes were unknown — as set forth they 
were contradictory. Prejudice and hostility 
to foreigners were greater inversely as the 
degree of civilization of a nation. The Know- 
Nothings sought to justify themselves by 
claiming that there are secret foreign organi- 
zations, but these they dignify by imitating. 
Know-Nothing purposes seem to be: (i) 
the exclusion of all foreigners from office; 
(2) the extension of the naturalization law 
to twenty-one years or other period; (3) 
the entire repeal of naturalization laws; (4) 
the exclusion of Roman Catholics from office. 
The real danger was in foreigners congregat- 
ing alone, and proscription tended to cause 
that. They might even get complete control 
of some northwestern state. He admitted 
the duty of excluding paupers and criminals. 
If the evil from them was as great as was 
charged, it was remarkable that they had been 
allowed to come so long. If the naturaliza- 
tion laws were repealed, the states would 

8 Congressional Globe, Appendix, Thirty-third Congress, Second 
Session, 49-52; December 18, 1854. 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 283 

then legislate. Naturalization gave nearly 
all rights, and yet the states could bestow 
nearly all without naturalization. They gave 
full suffrage, holding real estate, and state 
office. Other states did not recognize these 
rights, and a law of Congress was necessary 
to give the privileges and immunities of citi- 
zens in the several states. A state could even 
deny suffrage to all who were not natives of 
it. Not a voter in the Union derived his 
power from the federal government. 9 His 
state (Miss.) had one foreigner to sixty popu- 
lation, while some states had one to eight or 
ten. The problem differed, and states dealt 
with it as they found it. This movement at 
the North was a combination of all the isms — 
abolitionism, free-soilism, Whig-, woman's 
rights-, social-, and anti-rentz'^m. Seward was 
against Know-Nothingism, for he had com- 
mitted himself against foreign voters, and he 
had sagacity. It was the universal opinion 
in political circles that the movement was for 
a brief day. The discordant elements would 
dissolve it, if no other causes did. This new 
ism was the old alien law and Native Ameri- 
canism. The old unlaid spirit of federalism 
was abroad. It was hostile to democracy. 10 

9 This would need qualification as to inhabitants of territories. 

10 Congressional Globe, Appendix, Thirty-third Congress, Second 
Session, 53. 



284 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Sollers (Md.), a pro-slavery southerner, 
defended Know-Nothingism. The immigra- 
tion, only one hundred and twenty thousand 
for the first twenty years, had swelled to an 
ocean stream that would sweep away gov- 
ernment, laws, institutions, and the very name 
of American. Its character also had totally 
changed. It was the domestic policy of for- 
eign governments to send over the refuse of 
their jails and prisons, and their paupers also. 
As to Know-Nothing secrecy, the Boston 
Tea Party was secret, and he held in his 
hand at that moment a call for a secret Demo- 
cratic caucus. He denied that the principles 
of the Native American party were secret. 
Also, it warred against no religion, but 
against the union of church and state, against 
the mingling of religion with politics, and 
against allegiance to a foreign prince or po- 
tentate combined with American citizenship. 
He denied that Know-Nothingism had first 
appeared in the House in the person of Banks, 
of Massachusetts — he himself had first intro- 
duced a proposition to exclude foreigners 
from the army and navy. Look at the vic- 
tories of the party. It had swept over Penn- 
sylvania like a whirlwind, and failed in New 
York only because it knew not its own 
strength. It was victorious in New Jersey 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 285 

and Delaware. In Massachusetts it had an- 
nihilated all its opponents. He could not 
doubt its triumphant success, and that none 
but "Americans shall govern America." J1 

W. R. Smith (Ala.) referred to proposi- 
tions in both houses to repeal or modify the 
naturalization laws. It was becoming the 
great question of the age. The voice of the 
people would force the legislatures to take a 
stand, and all mere party organizations would 
have to retire before it. The vituperations 
of the press were leveled against the move- 
ment, but he felt no apprehensions. They 
presented the simple proposition — the purifi- 
cation of the ballot box; and proposed only 
to exclude unnaturalized foreigners, and to 
check immigration by wholesome laws. They 
had some radical propositions, but no bill, be- 
cause nobody could suppose that that Con- 
gress would favor this reformation. They 
could not expect that an administration so 
distinctly committed in favor of foreigners 
and foreign influence as the existing one 
would take the back track. He did not sup- 
pose that the bill before them would receive 
any serious attention. There was no law to ex- 
clude a foreigner, and no effectively adminis- 
tered one requiring a passport. No other coun- 

11 Loc. cit„ 83. 



286 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

try on earth was so situated. No immigrant 
should land without taking a solemn oath re- 
nouncing allegiance to all foreign powers and 
declaring bona fide intention to become an in- 
habitant of the United States. A passport 
from a consul should be required, and both 
captain and passport should inform him of 
the requirements here. England, France, 
Russia, and all governments in the East re- 
quired a passport. A foreign power could 
land on their shores any number of soldiers 
before committing any hostile act. How easy 
it would be for Russia to land a hundred 
thousand in a month, and they could equip 
themselves after landing! Consuls should 
investigate and give passports only to suit- 
able persons. A modification of the naturali- 
zation laws should prevent all foreigners from 
voting who were not naturalized already or 
had not taken steps to become so, except that 
boys under ten, or even fifteen, immigrating 
with their parents, should be considered citi- 
zens in every respect at the age of twenty- 
one. There had been fraud, negligence, and 
corruption from the foundation of the govern- 
ment in the administration of the naturali- 
zation laws. Of three hundred thousand im- 
migrants landed in New York alone during 
1854 only five thousand applied for naturali- 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 287 

zation or swore allegiance to the country. In 
five years more there would be a million a 
year coming. There was no law to prevent a 
pagan Chinese from appearing in Congress 
with power to mingle in its councils. 12 

L. M. Keitt (S. C.) said that the country 
had recently been amazed by the successes 
of a novel political organization which dis- 
paraged the dignity of American character 
by threatening it with subjection to a secret 
order. It was argued that the power to nat- 
uralize enabled Congress to regulate the con- 
stituency. But for what did Congress make 
a citizen of the United States? The Consti- 
tution answered : The citizens of each state 
shall be entitled to all the privileges and im- 
munities of the citizens in the several states. 
Since many states affixed a property quali- 
fication, and perhaps all required a term of 
residence, how could privileges and immuni- 
ties refer to the right to vote? They referred 
to property and personal rights, and not po- 
litical. The discussion in the convention had 
shown a clear purpose to leave the control 
of suffrage to the states. The Know-Noth- 
ing movement looked to the consolidation of 

WLoc.cit., 94. The last statement would be true only of a 
naturalized Chinaman, twelve years a resident. The question of 
naturalizing Chinese was an unsettled one then, or one hardly yet 
raised. 



288 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

the government; and, if consolidated, he 
asked: Was it then worth preserving? 13 

Witte moved a suspension of the rules that 
he might offer resolutions that the existence 
of such a secret, oath-bound political organi- 
zation was inconsistent with republican in- 
stitutions and hostile to the genius of the gov- 
ernment. The attempt to proscribe citizens 
for religion, or to favor or injure a religious 
denomination, was a direct violation of the 
spirit of the Constitution. Careful and strict 
administration of the naturalization laws was 
a solemn duty; yet interference with the 
rights of naturalized citizens was inconsistent 
with the plighted faith of the nation, and must 
diminish its growth and prosperity. The vote 
on this motion was 104 to 78, lacking eighteen 
of the necessary two-thirds. 14 Three similar 
resolutions were proposed in the Senate 
shortly before, 15 but were dropped without 
being acted upon. 16 Opposition was further 
shown by a resolution of the Legislature of 
Wisconsin, presented by Senator Dodge, de- 
claring that they were opposed to any altera- 

13 Congressional Globe, Appendix, Thirty-third Congress, Sec- 
ond Session, 66. 

14 (776) House Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Ses- 
sion, 314. 

15 January 25, 1855. 

16 Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 
391. 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 289 

tion of the naturalization laws, and directing 
their members to oppose any law extending 
the time of residence for naturalization. 17 

The prolonged contest over the speaker- 
ship in the House in 1855, and the presiden- 
tial campaign of 1856, each caused debates 
in which political parties and Know-Noth- 
ingism were much discussed. In the speaker- 
ship contest, Cox (Ky.) said that he consid- 
ered none to be Americans who did not ac- 
cept the twelfth section of the Philadelphia 
platform. All others were apostates or bolt- 
ers. The American Council had declared that 
agitation of slavery was not a question of im- 
portance in the order — that it was not a ques- 
tion at all. This was an expression of the in- 
tention of the party to be national, to abide by 
existing laws, and to throw out of Congress 
all agitation on that subject for the future. 18 

17 (745) Senate Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 
23 1 ; (772) Senate Miscellaneous Documents, Thirty-third Congress, 
Second Session, No. 12. 

18 The section referred to, adopted at Philadelphia, June, 1855, 
was in part as follows: "The National Council has deemed it the 
best guarantee of common justice and future peace, to abide by and 
maintain the existing laws on the subject of slavery, as a final and 
conclusive settlement of that subject in spirit and in substance." 
It further declared that Congress had no power to legislate upon 
the subject in the states, or to exclude any state because its consti- 
tution did or did not recognize slavery; and that Congress ought 
not to legislate upon the subject in the territories nor interfere 
with it in the District of Columbia. The new platform adopted in 
February, 1856, made no mention of slavery. It was asserted in 
Congress that Fillmore would not have accepted the presidential 
nomination on the former platform (Congressional Globe, Thirty- 
fourth Congress, First Session, Appendix, 1152). 



290 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

The position taken by the Democratic party 
on that question was identical with that of 
the Americans. He wished to make a gulf 
impassable between Americans and abolition- 
ists. The Democratic members of the House 
had passed a resolution, which he quoted, giv- 
ing congratulations on the triumph in vari- 
ous places of the doctrines of civil and religious 
liberty which had been so violently assailed by a 
secret order, known as the Know-Nothing party. 
The position of the administration and these 
resolutions of the Democratic caucus disabled the 
Americans from bringing support to elect a Dem- 
ocratic speaker. He could not carry with him 
enough Native Americans to elect a Democrat if 
he would; but let the Democrats come to the 
Americans, and they would elect a speaker 
and defeat northern sectionalism. The 
American party wanted no' disturbing legisla- 
tion; it asked only for peace. 19 

Some time after the election of Banks as 
speaker, Smith (Tenn.) read the names of 120 
out of 234 members of the House, whom he 
declared to have been elected as Know-Noth- 
ings or Americans. He called all who had 
received Know-Nothing support Know-Noth- 
ings, and said that they were elected by 
Know-Nothings. Seventy-five of them, he 

19 Congressional Globe, Appendix, Thirty-fourth Congress, First 
Session, 34-41; December 21, 1855. 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 291 

said, had voted for Banks, who had been the 
champion of their order in Congress. 
Twenty-eight abolitionists had voted for him, 
and not a Democrat. 20 Elliott said that the 
Know-Nothings had carried a majority of 
the House, thirty from the South and ninety 
from the North, according to the undenied 
count of Smith, of Tennessee, and then had 
permitted the election of Banks. The war 
on the Democratic party by southern Know- 
Nothings was much fiercer than that on the 
Black Republican, or northern wing of their 
party. 21 

Marshall (111.) said: 

Another wing of this allied army engaged in unholy 
warfare against the Democratic party is the southern 
branch of the Know Nothing party; the northern branch, 
with very few exceptions, having been swallowed up and 
completely identified with the Black Republican movement. 

Born of bigotry and intolerance, that secret, 
oath-bound organization had sprung up full- 
grown in a night time for a brief career; with 
the frosts of November it would have passed 
from the earth. The blackest page in the his- 
tory of those times would be the record of 
ingratitude of the Southern Know-Nothings 
to the northern Democratic party. The great 

20 Ibid., 352; April 4, 1856. 

21 Ibid., 1 1 52. 



292 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

abolition sea had swelled and rolled — these 
men had battled against it in the face of os- 
tracism ; but from Maine to California not 
one Know-Nothing member had been on the 
side of the Constitution in the contest. 22 

Talbott (Ky.), in showing that the Know- 
Nothing proposition that no state or terri- 
tory should give the suffrage to unnaturali- 
zed foreigners was impracticable and uncon- 
stitutional, quoted from a speech of Hon. 
Garret Davis, "one of the ablest jurists of 
Kentucky," in the Kentucky constitutional 
convention. Davis had no doubt of the com- 
petency, the right, and the duty if for good, 
of Kentucky to require twenty-one years' 
residence for suffrage. It appeared to him 
wholly fallacious and untenable that states 
could not add to the requirements of the nat- 
uralization law of Congress for suffrage. The 
states could confer the elective franchise upon 
foreigners and make them eligible to office 
before naturalization; and they had un- 
doubted power to exclude them after natur- 
alization. Their citizenship conferred upon 
them only rights conceded by the federal 
Constitution, and not a single one under any 
state government. States could wholly deny 
Doth suffrage and office to naturalized per- 

22 Loc. cit., 1228. 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 293 

sons, or could confer both fully or with re- 
strictions as they would. Talbott added that 
nearly half of the states allowed foreigners 
to vote in from nine months to two years. 
Power in Congress over the suffrage by nat- 
uralization meant power to control property, 
age, and other qualifications for suffrage. 23 

In February, 1856, Adams (Miss.), whose 
naturalization bill had been suppressed in a 
Senate Committee, in the previous Con- 
gress, 24 introduced a new bill. 25 It provided 
that no alien arriving after its passage should 
become a citizen, unless on his application 
he should declare on oath, and prove to the 
satisfaction of the court, twenty-one years' 
continuous residence in the United States. 
Declaration of intention should not be per- 
mitted until the alien had resided at least ten 
years in the United States. Any alien free 
white person, having proved twelve months' 
residence in the United States, should be 

entitled to all the protection of the government, and be 
allowed to inherit, and hold, and transmit real estate, so 
long as he remains within the limits of the United States, 
in the same manner as though he were a citizen. 26 

23 Ibid., 1233; July 28, 1856. 

24 See p. 278. 

25 (809) Senate Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session, 
84. 

26 Quoted from a summary of the bill. 



294 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Aliens should be admitted only in a United 
States circuit or district court in some state or 
territory. The penalty was to be five hundred 
dollars for a ship bringing in any immigrant 
without an authenticated consular certificate, 
deposited with the master, that the person 
was of good character, had never been con- 
victed of a criminal offense, and never had 
been a pauper. 27 Toombs, from the Judiciary 
Committee, returned the bill without amend- 
ment, but with the report that it ought not 
to pass. 

Several special orders were made for its 
consideration in committee of the whole, to 
accommodate Adams, who finally made a 
two-hour speech upon it. It appears that no 
one else cared to discuss it, 28 and nothing 
more was done with it. Adams said that, as 
mercy at the expense of justice became 
cruelty, so liberality to aliens at the expense 
of the morals, security, and rights of citizens 
was inexcusable, if not suicidal. He quoted 
largely to show opinions and abuses. Twenty 
years would double the population without 
immigration, and it would then be as dense 
as was consistent with their welfare. He was 
told that they would take Mexico when they 

27 Congressional Globe, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session, 
979; April 21, 1856. 

28 Ibid., 1414. 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 295 

needed more room, but he was opposed to a 
deliberate plan to supply by robbery and mur- 
der wants created by a permanent policy of 
inviting the hordes of Europe to come and 
partake of the bounty derived from their an- 
cestors. Except for immigration, the South 
would have gained upon the North in in- 
fluence in Congress. Already five state legis- 
latures had nullified a constitutional law of 
Congress. 29 Division and anarchy were inevi- 
table unless they checked immigration. He 
was told there was no danger, as the immi- 
grants voted the Democratic ticket. But let 
them crush out the American party, as it was 
said the next election would do, and, with the 
contest between Republicans and Democrats, 
how would the northern foreigners vote? 
Seward, Giddings, and Greeley could tell 
them. Nine-tenths of them would vote the 
Republican ticket, for their whole education 
and prejudices were against slavery. 30 

A year later a bill was introduced in the 
House by Whitney to establish a uniform rule 
of naturalization, and for the repeal of exist- 
ing laws. Late in the summer 31 the Judiciary 

29 This probably refers to the passage of personal liberty laws 
in the North. 

30 (809) Senate Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session, 
269, 319, 372, 381; Congressional Globe, Thirty-fourth Congress, 
First Session, 1409^ 

81 July 21, 1856. 



296 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Committee reported it, with an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. Hoffman, a 
Know-Nothing member from Maryland, 
made a speech upon it. In the next regular 
session, in December, a motion to discharge 
the committee of the whole from its further 
consideration, and instruct that it be reported 
to the House and made a special order from 
day to day until it was disposed of, was lost 
by a vote of 89 to 92. 32 

Hoffman referred to three dangerous 
measures that had recently passed. In spite 
of public sentiment, he said, the administra- 
tion had brought forward a bill whose whole 
object was to open the floodgates wider to a 
stream of corruption and commerce in foreign 
merchantable votes, and to break down the 
guards against it. After days of struggle, a 
fusion of administration and abolition forces 
had transferred the capital city government 
from American to foreign hands. The Dis- 
trict being the only place outside of the ter- 
ritories where Congress could regulate the 
suffrage, the bill was of great magnitude as 
regarded principle, line of policy, and prece- 
dent. Again, an amendment to the bill for 
a convention for organizing Oregon Terri- 

32 A two-thirds vote was necessary to carry. (838) House 
Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session, 489, 668; (839) 
1250. 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 297 

tory, by which suffrage was to be limited to 
citizens of the United States, had been re- 
jected by fusion No. 2. Finally, when the 
Senate had passed the Kansas pacification 
bill, containing a repeal of the permission in 
the Kansas organic act for full suffrage and 
office-holding to unnaturalized foreigners, a 
majority of the Democrats had fused with the 
abolitionists against it. This was a gigantic 
stride toward denationalization. 

The bill before them, while not all that was 
desired, had several leading provisions that 
were salutary. The period of probation was 
left blank, but a majority of the committee 
was for not less than seven years. As was 
eminently wise and proper, the bill provided 
for a registry law. Commencement of resi- 
dence could be indicated by filing a statement 
with the clerk of the court, with ages and 
other particulars of self and family. Then 
the final petition for admission was to be 
filed at least twenty days before the com- 
mencement of the term of court, and no 
hearing on an application could be had with- 
in twenty days before an election. It would 
be well also to enact that no person or com- 
mittee should pay the costs for the person 
naturalized. The greatest statesmen had ac- 
knowledged the necessity of a change in the 



298 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

existing system. The bill would destroy the 
business of putting through raw material 
even on election day. 33 

Meanwhile, a resolution of the Massachu- 
setts Legislature was laid on the table in the 
House and referred in the Senate. It urged 
that their peculiar system, very distinct in 
spirit and principles, presupposed a state of 
society and public opinion never yet existing 
elsewhere. Republican institutions were es- 
pecially adapted to an educated and intelli- 
gent people, capable of, and accustomed to, 
self-government. Free institutions could be con- 
fined safely only to free men — to men free from 
ignorance, and personal, religious, and political 
despotism. Foreigners could have in general, no 
sober appreciation of the principles, character, 
and purpose of such institutions. Aliens were, as 
a rule, incapable of exercising the franchise with 
advantage to themselves or with safety to others. 
The legislature recommended these truths to the 
consideration of the Massachusetts delega- 
tion in Congress; and requested their en- 
deavors to extend the term of residence re- 
quired for political rights, and their in- 
fluence to place the offices of government, 
both at home and abroad, exclusively in the 

33 Congressional Globe, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session, 
Appendix, 1212. 



KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD 299 

hands of native-born citizens who were op- 
posed to every kind of despotism. 34 

In the House in January, 1857, Henry 
Winter Davis said that the recent election 
had developed in aggravated form every evil 
against which the American party protested. 
Republicans and Democrats had rivaled each 
other in bidding for the foreign vote. For- 
eign allies, men naturalized in thousands on 
the eve of election, had been struggled for by 
the competing parties. It was the high mis- 
sion of the American party to restore the in- 
fluence of the interests of the people. He 
called on the Americans of the North to re- 
turn from the paths of error to the sound 
position of the American party, that of silence 
on the slavery agitation. 35 - 

Several hopeless efforts to amend the 
naturalization laws were made in the House 
from 1857 to i860. A bill by Humphrey Mar- 
shall reached the Judiciary Committee. 36 No- 
tice for leave to introduce bills was given by 
Marshall and I. N. Morris. Marshall also 
sought to introduce a joint resolution to 

84 (838) House Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session, 
653; (809) Senate Journal, Thirty- fourth Congress, First Session, 
114; House Miscellaneous Documents, Thirty- fourth Congress, First 
Session, March 7, 1856. 

36 Congressional Globe, Thirty-fourth Congress, Third Session, 
Appendix, 125. 

36 (892) House Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, Third Session, 

251. 



300 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

amend the Constitution. 37 Finally, a bill by- 
Morris, to amend the naturalization laws, was 
reported by Houston from the Judiciary Com- 
mittee, with the recommendation, that it do 
not pass; and it was laid on the table. 38 Then 
came the Civil War, and the end of the 
American party. 

37 (940) loc cit., Thirty-fifth Congress, First Session, 186, 1045. 

88 (995) ibid., Thirty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 115, 26.0; 
Congressional Globe, Thirty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 611; 
January 26, 1859. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Adams, Henry. History of the United States of America, 
9 vols. New York, 1889-91. 

Writings of Albert Gallatin. 3 vols. Philadelphia, 

1879. 

Adams, John Quincy. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. 
Edited by Charles Francis Adams. 12 vols. Phila- 
delphia, 1874. 

Adams, John. The Works of John Adams. With a Life 
of the Author by his grandson, Charles Francis 
Adams. 10 vols. Boston, 1856. 

American Historical Association, Papers and Annual Re- 
ports. 

American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and 
Executive. Folio, 38 vols. Washington : Gales & 
Seaton, 1832-61. 

Annals of Congress. 

Aurora. 

Bancroft, George. History of the Formation of the Con- 
stitution of the United States of America. 2 vols. New- 
York, 1882. 

History of the United States of America. The 

author's last revision. 6 vols. New York, 1885. 

B as sett, John Spencer. Slavery and Servitude in the 
Colony of North Carolina. Johns Hopkins University 
Studies, Vol. XIV, Nos. 4, 5. Baltimore, 1896. 

Beaulieu, Paul Leroy. The Modern State in Relation to 
Society and the Individual. London, 1891. 

Bluntschli, J. K. The Theory of the State. Oxford, 
1885. 

Burgess, John W. Political Science and Comparative 
Constitutional Law. 2 vols. Boston, 1890. 
301 



302 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Calhoun, John C. Works. 6 vols. New York, 1853-85. 

Columbia College Studies in History. 

Conway, Moncure D. Life of Thomas Paine. 2 vols. 

New York, 1892. 
Congressional Globe. 
Congressional Record. 
Curtis, George Ticknor. Constitutional History of the 

United States. Edited by Joseph Culbertson Clayton. 

2 vols. New York, 1889-96. 

Dallas, A. J. Life and Writings of Alexander James 

Dallas. By his son George M. Dallas. Philadelphia, 

1871. 
Elliott's Debates. 
English Statutes at Large. 
Federalist, The. Edited by Henry Cabot Lodge. New 

York and London, 1895. 
Franklin, Benjamin. The Works of Benjamin Franklin. 

With a Life of the Author by Jared Sparks. 10 vols. 

Boston, 1856. 
Freeman, Edward A. Comparative Politics. London, 

1873. 
Gallatin, Albert. Writings. Edited by Henry Adams. 

3 vols. Philadelphia, 1879. 

Hall, W. E. A Treatise on International Law. Oxford, 

1895. 

Hamilton, Alexander. The Works of Alexander Hamil- 
ton. Edited by Henry Cabot Lodge. New York and 
London, 1885. 

Hamilton, John C. History of the Republic of the United 
States of America, as Traced in. the Writings of Alex- 
ander Hamilton and of His Cotemporaries. Phila- 
delphia, 1864. 

Harrison, Frederic. Order and Progress. London, 1875. 

Hening, William Waller. Statutes-at-Large; Being a 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 303 

Collection of All the Laws of Virginia (1619-1792). 
13 vols. Philadelphia and New York, 1823. 

Hildreth, Richard. History of the United States. 6 vols. 
New York, 1851-56. 

Holst, Dr. H. von. The Constitutional and Political His- 
tory of the United States. 8 vols. Chicago, 1876-92. 

House Documents. 

House Executive Documents. 

House Journals. 

House Miscellaneous Documents. 

House Reports of Committees. 

Hunt, Gaillard. The American Passport. Department 
of State, Washington, 1898. 

Jay, John. The Correspondence and Public Papers of 
John Jay. Edited by Henry P. Johnson. 4 vols. New 
York and London, 1893. 

Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. 
Edited by Paul Leicester Ford. 10 vols. New York, 
1892-99. 

Johns Hopkins University Publications. 

Journals of Congress. Printed by John Dunlap. York- 
town. 1778. 

Kentucky Palladium. 

King, Rufus. Life and Correspondence of Rufus King. 
Edited by his grandson, Charles R. King, M. D. 5 
vols. New York, 1894. 

Lalor, John J., editor. Cyclopedia of Political Science, 
Political Economy, and of the Political History of the 
United States. 3 vols. Chicago, 1881-84. 

Lewis, Sir George Cornewall. An Essay on the Govern- 
ment of Dependencies. Oxford, 1891. 

Locke, John. Two Treatises on Civil Government. With 
an Introduction by Henry Morley. London, 1887. 

Lowell. The Hessians in the Revolution. 



304 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES 

Maclay, William. Journal of William Maclay, United 
States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791. New 
York, 1890. 

MacMaster, John Bach. A History of the People of the 
United States. 5 vols. New York, 1883-99. 

Madison, James. Letters and Other Writings of James 
Madison. 4 vols. Philadelphia, 1865. 

The Papers of James Madison. 3 vols. Washing- 
ton, 1840. 

Nation, The. New York, 1865—. 

National Intelligencer. 

New England Palladium. 

New York Daily Express, 1838. 

Niles Register. Baltimore, 181 1-49. 

Philadelphia Advertiser. 

Political Science Quarterly. New York, 1886 — . 

Poore, Ben. Perley, compiler. The Federal and State Con- 
stitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws 
of the United States. 2 parts. Washington : Govern- 
ment Printing Office, 1877. 

Register of Debates in Congress. 

Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States from 
the Compromise of 1850. 4 vols. New York, 1893-99. 

Schouler, James. History of the United States of 
America. 6 vols. New York, 1894. 

Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress. 
4 vols. Boston, 1821. 

Senate Documents. 

Senate Executive Documents. 

Senate Journals. 

Senate Reports of Committees. 

Seward, William H. The Works of William H. Seward. 
Edited by George E. Baker. 5 vols. Boston, 1884. 

Snow, Freeman. Treaties and Topics in American Diplo- 
macy. Boston, 1894. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 305 

Cases and Opinions on International Law. Boston, 

1893. 

South Carolina Gazette. 

The Statutes at Large of the United States of America. 

Taylor, Hannis. The Origin and Growth of the English 
Constitution. Boston, 1889. 

Thorpe, Francis Newton. A Constitutional History of 
the American People, 1776-18 50. 2 vols. New York, 
1898. 

Todd, C. B. Life and Letters of Joel Barlow. 

Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the United 
States and Other Powers since July 4, 1776. Wash- 
ington, 1889. 

United States Supreme Court Reports. 

Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Richmond, 
1893-. 

Washington Federalist. 

Washington, George. The Writings of George Washing- 
ton. Edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford. 14 
vols. New York and London, 1889. 

Webster, Prentiss. A Treatise on the Law of Citizenship 
in the United States. Albany, N. Y., 1891. 

Law of Naturalization in the United States of 

America and of Other Countries. Boston, 1895. 

Wheaton. History of the Law of Nations. 

Wilson, Woodrow. The State. Boston, 1889. 

Woolsey, Theodore D. Political Science; or, The State 
Theoretically and Practically Considered. New York, 
1886. 



INDEX 



Act concerning evidence, 219L 

Act of 1790, 33 f-, 48. 

Act of I795> 49 f-> 70- 

Act of 1798, 72 f. 

Act of 1802, 97 f. 

Act of 181 3, 117 f. 

Act of 1816, 129 f. 

Act of 1824, 167 f. 

Act of 1828, 178 f. 

Adams, John, 8, 72. 

Adams, J. Q., 9 f., 161 f., 165, 

177, 206, 217, 219 f. 
Alien enemies, 117-28. 
Alien landholding, 33, 35, 37, 

39, 42, 54, 66, 182, 254, 293- 
Aliens, 73 f., 170 f., 176, 

181 f., 212, 294. 
Amendment to the Constitu- 
tion, 147, 300. 
Bancroft, George, 5, 15. 
Banks, N. P., 281. 
Bibliography, 301. 
Buchanan, James, 178, 215. 
Calhoun, John C, i32f., i6if. 
Certificates, 130, 178 f., 228, 

234, 245. 
Children born abroad, 271 f. 
Cicero, 139, 146. 
Citizenship, 2, 4 f., 9 f., 14, 

67, 76, 78 f., 260 f. ; state, 

93, 260 f. 
Clay, Henry, 151. 
Codification, 131, 181, 242. 
Committee: of Detail, 21, 26, 

30; on Style, 21, 30. 
Confederation, Articles of, 

12 f., 31. 
Congress: Continental, 1, 2, 

5, 8 ; Confederation, 13. 
Constitution, 32. 



Convention, Constitutional, 

19 f. 
Criminals, 193 f., 221, 226, 

263 f. 
Declaration of Independence, 

1 f., 149, 241. 
Declaration of Intention, 

167 f., 175, 176, 180, 244, 

293. 
Dicey, Professor, 10 f. 
District of Columbia, 296. 
Douglas, Stephen A., 254. 
Evidence, act concerning, 

129 f. 
Expatriation, 50, 54 f., 115 f., 

120, 134 f., 241 f. 
Federalist, 14. 
France, 146. 

Franklin, Benjamin, 12, 28 f. 
Gallatin, Albert, 83, 87. 
Giddings, Joshua R., 249. 
Great Britain, 9, 141, 143, 

153, 164, 186 f. 
Hamilton, Alexander, 3, 22, 

98-105. 
Harrison, William Henry, 

203 f. 
Hessians, 5 f. 
Immigration, 23, 38, 81, 167, 

184 f., 264 f., 279, 286, 

295- 
Intercitizenship, 9 f., 12 f. 
Investigations, 227. 
Jefferson, Thomas, 6, 97 f., 

134 f- 
Kansas, 297. 
Know-Nothings, 278 f. (See 

also Native Americanism.) 
Levin, Mr., 248, 258, 263, 278. 
Loughborough, Lord, 9. 



3°7 



3 o8 



INDEX 



Louisiana, 207. 

Maclay's Journal, 43 f. 

Madison, James, 14, i8f., 2$f., 
27, 30, 36, 40, 49, 53 t, 57, 
59, 61, 63, 118, 119. 

Massachusetts, 188, 247, 269, 
298. 

Michigan, 163 f. 

Minors, 167, 202, 22,7, 244, 
286. 

Missouri, 206. 

Moral character, 53. 

Native Americanism, 184 f., 
255, 269 ; national conven- 
tion of, 247 ; Philadelphia 
platform of, 289. (See 
also Know-Nothings.) 

Native citizens, 131 £., 258, 
271, 299. 

Naturalization : by England, 
89 note, 161 ; by France, 55 
note, 241 ; by Hebrews, 220 ; 
by special act, 169 ; by 
states, 18, 85, 87, 102 note, 
126, 134, 258 f. ; colonial, 
17 ; fees for, 174, 229, 232L, 
245 ; fraudulent, 222 f., 242, 
245, 256 f. ; methods of, 
227 f., 243 ; of Chinese, 
287 ; political committees 
of, 230 f. ; progressive, 36, 
39 f., 66 ; wholesale, 224, 
229 f. 

Naturalization Society of New 
York, 231. 

New York, 260, 266, 269. 



Niles Register, 185 f. 

Oath of allegiance, 1, 2. 

Oregon, 296. 

Paupers, 193 f., 226, 263 f. 

Petitions, no f., 122, 171 f., 

192 {., 204, 215, 217 f., 

247, 264 f., 277. 
Pinckney, Charles, 139. 
Pinckney's plan, 20. 
Polacre Ship "Adams," case 

of, 139. 
Privileges, 60, 287. 
Publishing, 131, 205. 
Randolph, Edmund, 18 f., 28. 
Repatriation, 54 f., 159. 
Revolutionary War, 5. 
Rhode Island, 265, 280. 
Seward, William H., 274, 276. 
Slavery, 61 f., 249, 289L, 295. 
Suffrage, 37, 41, 76, 79, 253L, 

280, 287, 292 f. 
T. C. of Northumberland, 141. 
Territories, 68 f. 
Titles, 56 f. 
Tories, 1, 3. 
Twenty-one years' residence, 

198, 203, 215 f., 219, 247, 

256, 278 f., 293. 
Vattel, 140. 

Virginia, 134, 136, 150, 162. 
Washington, George, 33, 66. 
Webster, Daniel, 272. 
Williams, Isaac, case of, i38f. 
Women, 244, 272 f. 
Wisconsin, 288. 



